ACLU Sues Over Legality of "Targeted Killing" By Drones

MacAndrew writes "The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles — commonly known as 'drones' — for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001.' (Complaint.) The information sought includes the legal basis for use of the drones, how the program is managed, and the number of civilian deaths in areas of operation such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.' Aside from one's view of the wisdom, effectiveness, and morality of these military operations, the inclusion of US citizens suggests that summary remote-control executions are becoming routine. Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes). This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles, and the US government evidently doesn't want to discuss it."

Comments

Oddly Enough

[eldavojohn]

The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.

Re:Oddly Enough

[advocate_one]

OK... blowing the mod point I gave this post... I modded it Funny... apparently others went for insightful thus wasting the OP's joke...

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the time when the operators of /. decided that "funny" doesn't add to karma, some moderators decided that "insightful" is the new "funny".

Re:Oddly Enough

[Gnavpot]

The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.

Why is this "insightful". Shouldn't this be "funny"? Or, possibly "sickly funny"?

Probably because this joke sums up the problem very well:
If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?

Or, if I need to spell it out:
How do we know that people aren't executed, simply because they are a PITA and use the Freedom of Information Act against those in control of the drones?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no real objection to your suggestion. But, any missiles would be better targeted on some White Supremacist Militia camp, out in the woods. Second priority would be some rich elitist bastard's home, like maybe Al Gore's. You want a few kikes, gooks, coons, pollocks, and wops, you can have the rest of the missiles.

Wait, wut? There are no missiles left after we hit all the Aryan Nations freaks, and the egotistical elitists? Oh well. I've got nothing against the ghetto people anyway.

I guess I better apologize to the dude who wanted some missiles. Dude? Dude? Huh? He was killed in the first round of missile launches? Damn! No big loss, I guess. He sounded like a faggot anyway.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

  Message received.

  Identified primary source of conflict.

  38 53 22 N 77 02 07 W

  38.889481,-77.035218

  Coordinates are of distinctive visible marker.

  3 mile radius.

  Maintain 600' ASL

  Look for overweight old men in expensive suits and distinctive lapel pin.

  Good luck, and godspeed.

Re:Oddly Enough

[KDR_11k]

We're talking about military gear, they aren't going to get a court order for every set of coordinates they hand to the artillery team. When the military needs an enemy dead they'll use what they can, if they have some kind of precision weapon they'll take out the target with a minimum of collateral damage, if they don't then at some point they're going to fall back to carpet bombing. This isn't law enforcement, this is war. There's no judges deciding whether a target is really a terrorist, there's only the soldier and his gun deciding on the battlefield who needs to get shot and who doesn't. Air strikes (and that's really all a drone attack is) are based on recon data, not police investigations.

Using drones on domestic targets is already against the law and you'll notice that the areas in question are stuff like Afghanistan and Iraq. They won't be shooting at protesters in the US anytime soon and in Iraq they could just as well drop an artillery shell on those same protesters if that's what they wanted.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Duradin]

The problem is that this isn't war. It's a police action. It'd be war once congress declares war.

This is a state actor (US Military) fighting against a collection of non-state-actors/civilian groups without a formal declaration of war (including all the formalities that come with a declaration of war between state actors).

So really, this is (foreign) law enforcement. There should be due process. If congress can't be bothered to issue a declaration of war then we should still be bound by civilian conventions.

Re:Oddly Enough

[TheRaven64]

We're talking about military gear, they aren't going to get a court order for every set of coordinates they hand to the artillery team

And they're not targeting individuals with artillery shells either. They're targeting strategic emplacements, enemy strongholds, and so on. Once you start targeting individuals, it's assassination. Assassinating enemy leaders is a valid tactic. Assassinating your own citizens, generally, is not.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

... a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.

Amateurs, all they needed was his cell phone number.

Re:Oddly Enough

[HornWumpus]

The key word there is 'generally'.

I'd say taking up arms with our enemies would revoke my expectation of not being 'assassinated' (not agreeing with your definition though).

Is every Marine an 'assassin'? They 'target individuals'. They may not know the dudes name but they aren't shooting at the group.

Seems like your definition only excepts users of area weapons from the label 'assassin'.

How is targeting the strategic emplacement know to shelter enemy fighters (e.g. a village house being lased by ghosts who followed the pig fuckers there.) different from a strategic emplacement known to shelter a particular high value target (e.g. a village house being lased by ghosts who just 'extracted' the information from the village idiot.)

Both are perfectly valid military targets, a drone is no less valid a weapon then a mortar or a manned aircraft and 1000lb bomb.

Re:Oddly Enough

[yacc143]

And the ACLU action is about assassination and not normal military "work". It's about the procedures how "they" (because not even that is clearly known, who decides) decide whose name gets on a death list and gets murdered without any legal recourse.

Re:Oddly Enough

[yacc143]

Well, hint. For the majority of the world population, the US is also just foreign soil. You just defended 9/11, right? I mean, I'm almost sure that at least one person killed during the attacks had been a serious criminal by some foreign country's definition of serious criminal, and the rest where just collateral damage. As some supporters here already argued, they should have kept better company. (Sounds slightly different, when applied in reverse, doesn't it?)

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The drones are also being represented by the ACLU because they are claiming the Drones have a moral stance of not believing in murder, since they only signed on to military contracts to be recon vehicles.

Re:Oddly Enough

[jedidiah]

> How do we know that people aren't executed, simply because they are a PITA
> and use the Freedom of Information Act against those in control of the drones?

How do we know that isn't the case for ANYONE targeted by our Armies using ANY technology.

This isn't just about drone airplanes. This same sort of warped logic could apply to ever
other piece of military hardware and method of deployment including those where a grunt
can watch the light drain out of the eyes of the target.

Re:Oddly Enough

[TheRaven64]

You are missing the point. A marine is not shooting at an individual, he's shooting at a type. A marine will shoot 'guy in the other uniform,' 'guy defending target' or 'guy aiming a gun at him.' He won't shoot 'guy named Joe Smith.'

That's the difference between a military killing and an assassination. The problem is not that the drone attacks are targeting individuals, it's that they are targeting specific individuals. Marines are (usually) not told to go and kill specific individuals. They are told to go and achieve specific military objectives and kill people who try to stop them.

There is a big difference between a soldier shooting an American citizen who is aiming a gun at him, and the military killing a specific, identified, American. The ACLU has no problem with the former. They object to assassination - meaning targeted killing of specific individuals - of American citizens by American troops without any oversight or accountability.

Re:Oddly Enough

[jedidiah]

Assassination in wartime is "normal military work".

They even have guys that specifically specialize in this sort of thing.

Re:Oddly Enough

[QuantumPion]

If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?

Last time I checked soldiers weren't required to read enemy soldiers their Miranda rights before shooting at them. It's a war, not a criminal investigation.

Re:Oddly Enough

[lgw]

Congress has declared war. A bill doesn't have to have the title "Declaration of War", it simply has to authorize the use of military force in a foreign nation. We've done that for the conflict in Afghanistan. It is a declared war. Wars do not have to be on "state actors" - wars between a nation and a group of brigands or pirates used to be somewhat common.

Further, non-state militaries have less rights, not more, in the traditions of armed conflict as recorded in many treaties. Brigands and pirates (ie.e, unlawful combatants) captured by a military are not even considered "prisoners of war", and may be summarily executed. Whether we're stretching the definition of "unlawful combatant" is a whole different argument, but members of non-state militaries have fewer rights than members of state militaries, and for good reason.

But the Taliban in Afghanistan is, at least loosly, a government, and whether you consider their warfighters "soldiers" or "unlawful combantants" is mostly a matter of how much you think uniforms matter. They certainly aren't "civilians". Hiding among civilians while fighting a war doesn't make you a civilian, it makes you scum.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anachragnome]

"It's a police action."

Knowing that our government more then likely uses out-sourced information about targets, i.e. informants, moles, etc., one might wonder if perhaps these outside sources are supplying us with bad intelligence and simply taking advantage of our capabilities to suit their own aspirations.

The extra-judicial aspect makes this all the more plausible since safeguards have been removed from the decision-making/targeting process.

Re:Oddly Enough

[MichaelSmith]

Using drones on domestic targets is already against the law and you'll notice that the areas in question are stuff like Afghanistan and Iraq. They won't be shooting at protesters in the US anytime soon and in Iraq they could just as well drop an artillery shell on those same protesters if that's what they wanted.

So what protects protesters in my home town?

Let me guess: if you don't live in the US then STFU.

Re:Oddly Enough

[GooberToo]

And they're not targeting individuals with artillery shells either.

Where in the hell did you get this incredibly wrong information? We have GPS guided shells now. Not to mention we commonly fire artillery from planes which have been visually aimed, including via FLIR-like systems.

If a known combatant can be identified, they have been targeted since day one of the war. Its called actionable intelligence and is considered SOP so long as an order to fire can be obtained. Remember, sine the majority of the combatants don't wear uniforms, identification is the next best thing. And according to the Geneva Convention, soldiers who do not wear uniforms are considered spies and/or illegal combatants and can be summarily executed on the spot.

it's assassination.

No! Assassination is the political targeting of individuals who may or may not pose an immediate threat in a combat situation. I have no idea if individuals are being assassinated. But to be clear, if you are carrying a weapon and can be identified as an enemy combatant/soldier in a legitimate combat zone, you absolutely are a valid target. Just because someone knows your name doesn't mean all direct fire weapons are illegal. That would be complete bullshit.

Re:Oddly Enough

[GooberToo]

Thank you! One of the few people who actually understand what they are talking about. If I could vote you +10 Informative, I most certainly would!

Re:Oddly Enough

[More_Cowbell]

Without disagreeing with anything you say (not necessarily agreeing either), would this same logic apply to the drone strikes in Pakistan?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Thing 1]

How do we know that isn't the case for ANYONE targeted by our Armies using ANY technology.

YES! Exactly.

I remember in 2004/2005 or so, there was this short-lived drama on TNT (? One of the cable channels, anyway), called "Over There", which chronicled a group of soldiers in Iraq.

In one of the episodes, they "found" a house which had a lot of money in the walls. Owner comes home, armed, sees people looting, starts shooting; owner ends up dead.

While watching that episode, I got a really eerie, creepy feeling that perhaps some of our actual military targets aren't "military" so much as economic. Really saddened me, but wth was I going to do about it? Thankfully, we have the ACLU, which has offices at numerous latitude/longitude pairs.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If remote execution of terrorists without trial or public knowledge is acceptable, then how do we know that only terrorists are executed?

I remember reading a news story where the military already gave the simple answer to that question: If they kill them, that proves they were terrorists because they only kill terrorists. Thus, the system is foolproof.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get scared when I'm walking down the street and see a white supremacist or a rich person. How would killing them benefit me?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Wars do not have to be on "state actors" - wars between a nation and a group of brigands or pirates used to be somewhat common.

Yeah, we've got several wars going on right now. Let's see, there's the war against terror, the war against drugs, the war against cancer, the war against poverty and probably some more I'm forgetting right now.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

bah, that's what underrated is for - it gives karma without changing the description

Re:Oddly Enough

[yndrd1984]

I don't get scared when I'm walking down the street and see a white supremacist ...

Then you aren't black or hispanic.

Re:Oddly Enough

[lgw]

When we declared war on Germany, did that apply to fighting German troops in Africa?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Duradin]

You say congress has declared war, I say congress decided to not commit political suicide by "not supporting our troops" and very patriotically rubber stamped every military funding bill even vaguely concerned with our desert excursion.

Of course it'd be political suicide to actually declare war these days. I mean, what if we lost and you voted for it. That'd look bad. And don't even think of voting against a very patriotic war in this post 9/11 world. Thus the only solution is never declare war. Approve continued funding for troops sent out by executive orders and call it a patriotic day.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anand7]

Hiding among civilians while fighting a war doesn't make you a civilian, it makes you scum.

Well this is a problem... The people piloting the drones are "hiding among civilians". One cannot engage them without engaging civilians. Are they regular or irregular troops?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, sure, because they're not civilians, they're enemy soldiers and this is WAR! Oh, but sometimes some of the enemy soldiers are captured, then they're "illegal combatants", not soldiers, and there is no war. Therefore they fall through the cracks in the rules and anything can be done . At this point, someone who actually knows something about international tries to explain that there aren't any cracks in rules for them to fall through, they actually do have a defined role in warfare and proscribed treatment... SHUT UP, THEY FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS! say the unwashed masses and blatantly racist public opinion and the will of morally corrupt politicians drives the actions of what is apparently the most powerful military force in the world.
Seriously, all it seems to be about anymore is that the US does whatever the hell it wants, then pardons itself afterwards if it gets caught or called to task. The whole current mess with the world trade center, the wars, all of it is just decades of chickens coming home to roost. Sure, the other guys are terrible, but that doesn't excuse tossing out all the rules and just killing whoever, wherever, whenever. There may be points in wars where things get so bad, so very terrible, that nations, in desperation might possibly be a little justified in descending to the worst of tactics. The situation in the US is hardly at that point. Do you personally actually feel afraid that you personally, or anyone you know (who is over here, rather than off in a war zone) is in any real danger (real danger, not extremely remote risk of danger) from the other side in this war?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Eivind]

Except when it isn't, you know ?

The military is (nominally) in control and cooperation with the leaders in Afghanistan, USA is not, infact, at the moment at war with Afghanistan. There's an armed conflict with certain groups that exist inside Afghanistan, true. Who ensures that the drones kill only people who're part of that ?

Re:Oddly Enough

[countertrolling]

They won't be shooting at protesters in the US anytime soon...

What the hell are you talking about?? They already have! Oh.. you mean with a drone... nevermind..

Re:Oddly Enough

[Riktov]

The drone pilots are military pilots, in uniform, on military installations. The aircraft themselves are clearly marked with U.S. Air Force insignia.

"Hiding among civilians" would be If the drone aircraft were carrying out their attacks while mixed in among a formation of CNN-chartered helicopters and UN support transports, or if the pilots remotely operating the aircraft were doing so sitting in public cafes dressed as businessman.

The enemy are wholly justified under the rules of warfare to attack the drone aircraft, or the pilots who control them. Neither of these actions in any way necessitate engaging civilians. If Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan don't have the means to take out a pilot sitting in a underground bunker in Las Vegas, that's their problem.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anand7]

Yeah...that's a distinction without a difference. I agree that shooting out of school windows etc. is fundamentally wrong. I also profoundly disagree with the Talibani agenda. This isn't about that. The issue I have is that so many of the US' moral positions depend on what their wealth can buy. The American military started as insurgents, using native fighting techniques against the British. They didn't wear uniforms and they didn't follow the same rules...I'll grant that there were no rules of engagement back then. What concerns me is that the same mindset as had the British that caused Americans to rise up is present in the modern American. This mindset coupled with an enemy who has access to far more powerful weapons and as strong a will as the first Americans will not lead to peace and it will not lead to an honorable victory. This is a battle that will go on and on...this is a battle that will benefit salesmen.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Phoghat]

OK, if you use that argument, what about a targeted killing by a sniper? Isn't that the same? How do we know the sniper is killing a terrorist?

Re:Oddly Enough

[Dominic]

Would the average American have been happy if we (the British) had used these killer drones against the IRA? I only ask because they seem to be 'ok' terrorists for a lot of Americans, so they might object to the idea. Or maybe it's because Afghan terrorists aren't so white and similar looking to us?

Re:Oddly Enough

[hey!]

It's different because it's remote, stealthy war.

You could make the same argument for a strategy which, as far as I know, we do not currently employ: assassination squads. If we were to put American citizens on a list of people to be killed by commandos in a night raid as they sit in their homes, that'd be a big deal. That's the big kill strategy. You find out where the target is living and you blow the house to bits from thousands of miles away from a practically undetectable weapons platform.

Now this would be a mere "slippery slope" argument, were not not for the fuzziness of the line between "criminal suspect" and "enemy combatant". If you believe certain people, say John Yoo, the president can do *anything* to *anyone* so long as in his judgment it is useful in a war effort. Now get really fuzzy about "war" is and where the "battlefield" is, and you've just made the case that the president can execute American citizens if in his sole judgment it is in the national interest.

"Of course", you may think, "no President would use that power for political ends. It's just a paranoid fantasy." Maybe so. But under this scenario, if we accept the notion that the President is free from Congressional or judicial restraint and regulation when acting in his capacity of Commander in Chief, there is no formal legal obstacle to the President murdering his political enemies if he sincerely believes they are enemies of the state.

Fortunately, I think that notion is constitutionally broken. The Constitution clearly recognizes the need for considerable presidential autonomy in war fighting, that is only within the limits Congress sets.

Re:Oddly Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"a strategy which, as far as I know, we do not currently employ: assassination squads."
Yeah, we quit doing that long ago.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/21/nation/na-cia-blackwater21

Re:Oddly Enough

[lgw]

Having longer ranged weapons than your opponents is not some "moral position". When the early militias were first coming together to form the first revolutionary armies, Washington was insistant that the wannabe-government buy them uniforms, even ahead of guns or food, because it's important.

Being "an insurgent" is not some automatically-immoral thing. Not wearing a uniform is. Not having a clear chain of command to a civilian authority is. These things are important, and have been regarded as such for centuries. War is sufficiently evil when conducted by uniformed soldiers as an extension of politics.

And on the hopeful side, Iraq has pretty much been a victory, both for the Iraqi people and for US interests. I doubt we'll choose to commit enough resources to Afghanistan to have a victory there as well, as it would be a much harder and longer fight (more socially than militarily), but we at least have proof that it's possible for democracy to arise where might-makes-right is taken off the table.

Re:Oddly Enough

[BOwara]

As an US Army sniper I had standing orders to kill Vo Nguyen Giap, Nguyen Huu An, and about 2 dozen others. I imagine todays soldiers have Osama Bin Laden and another 2 dozen shoot on sight names, the drone pilot just have longer range weapons with much better and much clearer sights to ID who they are shooting. PS: Don't look to me for sympathy for traitors who have gone over to the side of an enemy who declared war on us and attacked us on our native soil.

Amicus Curiae

[Deimos24601]

The ACLU needs to recruit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl for this one.

Re:Amicus Curiae

[Anonymous Coward]

pff.. true fans know that the real john connor is eddie furlong.

Re:Amicus Curiae

[Goffee71]

Hmm, that'll be a fun meeting. "Fellow lawyers, honored celebrity guests and bleeding heart liberals. It is so good to see so many of you in one room. We are gathered here today to stab at the heart of the neo-con agenda... hey, what's that droning noise?"

Re:Amicus Curiae

[spidercoz]

yeah, and that's why the machines win

Someone tagged this FOIA

[Brett Buck]

I can almost guarantee that the information sought is either classified or at least FOUO (For Official Use Only) which means it's exempt from the FOIA.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Yvanhoe]

The doctrine regarding the use of lethal force against American civilians can be classified ? That sounds like a real problem...

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Aeros]

But why are they thinking the US government is targeting US citizens over there?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[benjamindees]

I would respond seriously, but unfortunately your post is now classified also.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Aeros]

dammit it's always something

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[rworne]

Because there are some US citizens that are actively working with the Taliban. If US citizens are working as enemy combatants then they should be eligible as targets as well.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Shouldn't they be arrested, charged, and tried then, rather than summarily executed?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Captain Splendid]

then they should be eligible as targets as well.

Damn that pesky Bill Of Rights!

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[characterZer0]

If US citizens are working as enemy combatants outside of the US, then they should be eligible as military targets as well.

Just to make it clear that the US military has no business going after US citizens on US soil. We have other agencies for that.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They should be legal targets. For capture and trial on charges of treason. Not for summary execution.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

No. We didn't arrest Confederate combatants in the American Civil War, nor did they set out to arrest Plains and Southwest Indian combatants who left the Reservations and treaty lands during the Indian Wars.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are some US citizens that are actively working with the Taliban. If US citizens are working as enemy combatants then they should be eligible as targets as well.

To hyperbole: Anyone assumed/accused/known of working with the Taliban should be gunned down?

Where do you draw the line?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[joebagodonuts]

And shouldn't there be oversight to verify that the targets are legitimate combatants?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwillden]

Probably US Citizens like Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, whom we recently thought had been arrested, but unfortunately was not. He is wanted for treason and has a one million dollar price on his head. He is actively working against the US, has been indicted for treason, the first case since the 50's, and is therefore a viable target.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Rijnzael]

In the battlefield of the kind US soldiers face in the Middle East, I think it would be a tad cumbersome to verify the combatant down your gun sight isn't a citizen before pulling the trigger. Likewise, if a US citizen defects or otherwise joins the 'enemy' in the fight against US forces, then there is no distinction between the citizen and non-citizens in the target zone. How it differs from an extrajudicial killing is dubious though, I agree.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Luckily, I'm sure the process for classifying said citizens as "taliban" or "not-taliban" is as robust as one would want it to be, when the outcome is, potentially, secret robotic death.

It would not at all surprise me if there have been instances of such. We know of a few with pretty decent confirmation. However, any secret process whereby citizens can be placed on a military/CIA kill list falls deeply into "what could possibly go wrong?" territory.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why they tagged it FOIA.

The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles

Oh look at that, the first sentence of the summary mentions FOIA! Imagine that!

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

You skin that smoke wagon, Wyatt!

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[johnlcallaway]

Yeah .. that's it. We'll just ask for ID cards proving citizenship before we shoot back at someone.

If they are on US soil, I would agree. A US citizen in a foreign country that is hanging around with enemy combatants that the US military thinks might be doing bad things is fair game. I don't care if they are a news reporter either. Those are the risks one takes in a war zone.

War sucks ... it's even worse when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and hides like cowards among the civilian populations, using women and children to hide behind. If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a US citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

The difficulty regards whether it is sufficient to "actively working in the Taliban", or simply that you are suspected of working in the Taliban, in order to be classified as an enemy combatant.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Eligible?

Hell, if they are classified as enemy combatants, they should sure as hell no longer *be* citizens.

Revoke their citizenship and suddenly, this angle....goes away.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Damn them for being enemy combatants?

Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

how convenient that Bush revised the posse comitatus act after katrina

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jav1231]

There is no indication these are U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Calm down, people. Frankly, if you're an American training in a jihadist camp then I would hope a drone would take you out. You're no longer a citizen to me.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Maxo-Texas]

However, with these drones, they are specifically targeting people.

So they know "this is john smith of 1390 mockingbird lane, CA and a U.S. citizen." That's the point of the protest-- known U.S. citizens are being targeted for execution.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Hrvat]

Hey, you're disagreeing with the government, thus you're an EC. Revoke his citizenship! Kill him!

Slippery slope, friend...

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[goaliemn]

And the changes were repealed in 2008.

It was added in 2006 so the military could help with basic law enforcement after Katrina. When it was no longer needed, it was repealed. Its kind of shocking it was repealed, but it was.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[ArcCoyote]

The military wouldn't target anyone with a drone on US soil, US citizen or not. Too much risk of collateral damage.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. What's your name sir? Let me look that up in this classified database of people we think are working with the Taliban. Sorry sir, you can't look. You don't happen to have $50,000 I can borrow, do you? No? Oh Well.
Oh my goodness, look at this, somehow you got on the list! Please stand out in the parking lot 500 feet away from the building and we'll clear this right up.

But you're right, this is America (tm). That could never happen.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[corbettw]

Are you seriously arguing that someone who:

1) Goes to another country
2) Fights on behalf of that country or a splinter group within it
3) Fights against the US and/or its allies

deserves protections offered by the Bill of Rights? These people are enemy soldiers, not just criminals. They deserve protections under the Geneva Convention, but that's it.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[hduff]

<quote>No. We didn't arrest Confederate combatants in the American Civil War, nor did they set out to arrest Plains and Southwest Indian combatants who left the Reservations and treaty lands during the Indian Wars.</quote>

We also sent Americans to concentration camps and performed medical experiments on Americans without their consent. So you position is that if we did or didn't do it before, that's justification and absolution for doing it now? I would think that wrong is wrong, but you must have a much different sense of morality that other people.

That said, if American citizens are actively engaged in hostilities toward American citizens in war, their citizenship status should not protect them from harm at that time. If they are just sitting around and can be apprehended with minimal risk, then of course arrest, charge and try them. But to put them on a government-sanctioned "hit list" just because you can isn't right. That same government can also put you on that same list for no particular reason. That wouldn't be right either.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[ColdWetDog]

This wouldn't be a problem if we all had RFID capsules embedded into us.

Just say'in....

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

If so then there should be a policy reflecting that, and a politician somewhere that made the decision authorizing the action. Theoretically that should mean there is someone who could be held accountable by the public for the decision to assassinate fellow citizens. If, of course, one could find out what the policy is and who signed off on it.

Essentially, what are the legal grounds by which a citizen is designated as "Killable by U.S. the government"?

And if you think answering that question within the law isn't important, then answer this question: is a government that can't answer this question one that you would want to live under?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[bcmm]

Because there are some US citizens that are actively working with the Taliban. If US citizens are working as enemy combatants then they should be eligible as targets as well.

"Enemy combatant" doesn't mean anything. If an enemy combatant is somebody that can be summarily executed, anyone they want out of the way can be an enemy combatant.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwiget001]

Actually, no.

Even if classified or FOUO, it does not automatically exempt it from FOIA.

If the document is responsive to the request, even if classified or FOUO, it can be redacted and then released. However, where a hearing might be necessary (and is at times) the document may be protected

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[srleffler]

Who decides who is working as an enemy combatant? What is the due process that ensures this decision is correctly made, and corrects it when (not if) errors are made?

Think about this the next time you leave the US on vacation. You have no way of knowing if you have been somehow designated an "enemy combatant".

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[DarkOx]

Don't worry once Pelosi and Obama use a bunch of extra constitutional tricker to pass this healthcare bill, you can be assured the RFID chips are but a few short years away.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

FOUO is not a classification (it's a handling instruction) and it is not exempt from FOIA.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jagapen]

Real1tyCzech, you are an enemy combatant and are therefore not to be afforded any Geneva Convention protections.

No, no, stop, stop! I know what you're going to say, so don't even try to protest that you've never engaged in hostilities toward the United States. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. There's no due process. You don't get to protest this designation in court. The President says that you're an enemy combatant, and that's that.

Any plane you hear approaching now could be the last. Enjoy!

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[billcopc]

If US citizens are working as enemy combatants, killing a few defectors won't solve the underlying problem that the nation is spiraling into madness.

Terrorism is not a cause, it's a symptom. People get desperate because they feel wronged and powerless. Whether it's due to religious fanaticism or abusive capitalism, the result is the same: angry people who have nothing left to lose.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

Sucks having to follow the law... doesn't it.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jank1887]

actually, FOUO only covers a narrow set of conditions, and are generally privacy related. Medical records, active legal proceedings, corporate trade secrets, etc., that should be excluded from FOIA disclosure. Of course, recently this has been broadened (#1 especially)

Specifically, from

United States Code, Title 5 , Section 552
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+5USC552

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices
of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than
section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires
that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular
criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to
be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which
would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in
litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law
enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected
to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C)
could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose
the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or
foreign agency or authority or any private institution which
furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a
record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority
in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting
a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information
furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques
and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,
or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement

[[Page 29]]

investigations or prosecutions if such d

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pandaman9000]

Ok.....

You protect your family and country with phallic jokes and pacifism. I will protect mine with bullets.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Unequivocal]

How do you tell if they are an EC? How does anyone? This might not be a legal problem (only a moral one) for non-citizens, but the concept that you get due process from the US gov't as a US citizen doesn't go away when you go overseas, at least as far I've ever read.

It's one thing to try someone in absentia and find them guilty but that's not how this whole thing works - you don't even know you're an EC until the missile comes through the roof.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[ThatsNotPudding]

It is now, at least.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

No, it's just that the US government is executing people without judical review.

So basically, somebody in the adminstration puts Mr. Smith on the death list, and it's basically that. Wonder what will happen if somebody ever discovers that Mr. Smith was innocent, the only crime that he did commit to have an affair with the wife of the person who put him on the death list?

You do realize, that the US is clamoring about human rights abuses in China and other places, right?

Hint: the right to life is probably the most fundamental human right.

Basically, there is now law allowing this targeted killings, and for some cases (US citizens) the government is clearly violating the constitution.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

If US citizens are working as enemy combatants outside of the US, then they should be eligible as military targets as well.

Just to make it clear that the US military has no business going after US citizens on US soil. We have other agencies for that.

In fact they are already prohibited by law from doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[uncledrax]

If you can justify that they are military combatants of a foreign nation, or political faction of a nation, they would have have their citizenship revoked as per US TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > 1481. Those persons may still have renounced their citizenship based on how you interpret section b... there's to many commas for my simple mind to comprehend.

Either way, even if they ARE a citizen, and they are pointing a weapon at you and you have reasonable cause to fear for your life, you're covered by Self Defense.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[SecondaryOak]

I disagree. I would say it sometimes takes more courage to wage war than to engage in diplomacy. Diplomacy requires almost nothing - not the amount of resources war requires, certainly not the personal sacrifices taken by soldiers and their family members (and that, in turns, affects the public opinion and thus the politicians). Between having a discussion and getting shot at, there's no doubt what's the scarier activity. But sometimes you just need to take risks and stand up for yourself.

I do agree that once hostilities do commence, diplomacy quickly becomes less popular as people just want plain old revenge, and it takes courage from the leaders to face the public opinion and start negotiation. So I'm not actually saying you're wrong, I'm just stressing that many people prefer diplomacy over warfare, and are willing to risk a lot - maybe too much - for that. Sometimes you need the courage to choose the military option, even when you know it means your son might not come back.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jagapen]

So, do you agree with the following: One day, the President or one of his people decides that they don't like your, rworne's, politics and decide that you should be taken out on your trip to Spain. The President declares you an enemy combatant. You no longer have any rights. It does not matter whether you have ever engaged in hostilities against the United States. There is no burden of proof. No due process. You do not have the right to challenge that designation in a court of law. You might plead with the President personally, if you somehow find out about it, but it will do you no good. You have no legal recourse. You do not have any appeal process whatsoever. You're just dead.

Is this okay with you? Or do you honestly believe that all government officials are honest as the day is long and that none of them will ever abuse this power?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[I'm not really here]

I'm all for civil talks, but that takes two. I believe we've been trying to contact some portions of the Taliban, and Pakistan has started to work with us to achieve the same goal? All that the Taliban and Al Qaida need to do to end this is show up and talk to us.

I can see your point, and I agree that we went in on wrong premises, but at this point, without both sides being willing to sit down to talk, if we back off, they retaliate hard, if we stay, we're the bad guys, so we're screwed either way.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Unequivocal]

I made this same point a little earlier: the problem is who decides that they have done what you described? Obviously in the heat of combat, the losing side gets killed or captured. But these strikes are strategic - they are killing enemy leaders and disrupting the prosecution of war by the other side. So if a US citizen is determined to be an enemy leader (or similar) who decided? What process was used to decide? And importantly, the person might not even know that such a decision was made so they can't appeal.

If you think secret military decisions are less prone to mistakes than other parts of gov't and military activity, that's one thing, but I think it's safe to say that mistakes will be made in this area. So in effect they aren't stripping rights from one person they're stripping them from anyone they want, without recourse. That seems like a problem to me.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[AndersOSU]

which is actually fine - and I think the ACLU would think so too - provided this decision making process doesn't consist of a haliburtan employee saying, "I don't think he belongs here ... *bang*"

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[qbast]

Or to be more precise, there are some US citizens accused of actively working with the Taliban. And some guy screaming any name he could remember, while being tortured is not exactly "proof". And even if it was, since when any US citizen can be just murdered without trial?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pandaman9000]

There will be a commanding officer that will answer to such queries/charges.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

So anything can be classified FOUO, by discretion of the government? The FOIA - and American jurisprudence in general - is a laughingstock. We live in tyranny, people - a government that kills at will and does not have to be held accountable for it.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Captain Splendid]

And both you and and GP both forget to also label them American citizens, which affords them legal rights.

Show me the statute that says they lose those rights, show me the law that says they lose their citizenship and I'll shut up. In the meantime, enjoy the Rule Of Law. You know, one of those cornerstones of modern democracies that makes the US a much nicer place to live than say, China.

Hey, I'd be as pissed as you if a fellow citizen dedicated himself to undermining my country. But what you're basically saying is that rules are too hard to follow. Man the fuck up and be an American. And if you don't like the rules, change them. don't just ignore them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Bakkster]

Unless the US became a legitimate war zone, of course. But then, we'd have problems bigger than some ACLU lawsuit could solve...

I do agree with GP, though. If someone is an enemy combatant in a foreign war, this is no longer a law enforcement issue where you have a right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. You are now covered only by the Geneva Convention protections.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[AndersOSU]

yeah - whoever decided that the legislature should be able to vote on and pass things.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Unequivocal]

This is a good point - if you name a US citizen, declare them an outlaw, using whatever process is appropriate (civilian or military) then by all means knock his block off. But the real worry for me is that there are secret kill lists of US citizens, that you can't know about until the missile lands on your head. Of course I have the same concern about non-US citizens but the legal basis for that concern (within US law) is less solid, as far as I know.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[guspasho]

If they are merely suspected of it? They should be assassinated within their own homes? Why even bother having a judicial system at all? Or laws?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[OrangeMonkey11]

Not on my tax dollar; true the governments is using our tax dollar for the equipments and resources to execute these guys. But in the long run you save by not having to paid to bring these guys to the US, put them on trial and then feed and house them for the remainder of their life state side.

So how does that saying goes "a bullet cost .20 cents"

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

Since the article states that the attacks have been carried out in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, I think that apprehending them with minimal risk isn't going to be an option.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[mdarksbane]

You're missing something, though. The suit is about "alleged" treasonous scumbags.

If an American citizen moves to Afghanistan, buys and AK-47, and starts shooting at US soldiers, no one even begins to claim they can't fire back and shoot the bastard.

Similarly, if he joins Al Qaeda, is present while the training camp is raided, and ends up killed in the shooting, the soldiers get a reasonable level of leeway that they didn't *know* he was a citizen before they started shooting - they aren't going to be required to check ID's before they can open fire.

This is about the government deciding, through whatever process (even if it is correct), that an American citizen is a terrorist operative, and then taking steps to eliminate that person with no due process.

If they decided that someone in Michigan had been helping terrorists, they can't put a sniper on a rooftop and take him out on his way to McDonald's. If he's a serial killer they can't do it either.

The fact that this is being done with drones is only tangential to the real constitutional problem here. The drones are just an effective and lower-risk form of assassination.

So, is that clear enough? Actively engaged in a terrorist act = blow the fucker up. Suspected of engaging in terrorist actions = due process of law, just like being suspected of rape, murder, or any other horrible a person can do.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Again, almost certainly proceedings to revoke citizenship are (and should be) way more complicated than being put on a list.

This death list by drone thing is kind of a 3-strikes law. The differences are:

  * the 3 strike laws are laws or proposed laws. The death list is Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama deciding that I want these guys dead. Guys, the president is not above the law, see Nixon and his approach of "if I do it, it's legal, dammit".

  * it's not about Internet access. It's about human lifes. Worse, it's about killing innocents so that one guy on the death list can be bombed. Wonder how the citizens would like it if Mr. X goes to death row, so do his neighbors?

  * it's hypocracy from the finest. The US, telling rogue nations about human rights. Well, literacy seems not to be required to be elected, hence poor Mr. Obama surely does not know that the right to life is a basic human right.

  * it's about loosing the war on terror. If we loose what defines us (e.g. rule of law) just to "defeat the terrorists" (if that's even possible), we have already lost.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Yet.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[kalirion]

Get with the program. In the post-911 world, we kill'em all and let God sort them out. If they were innocent, we just sped up their trip to Heaven, and they should thank us for it. Or are you some kind of un-american godless islamo-fascist terrorist fundamentalist?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

It's funny. One would think that when presented with such abuse of power, the person abusing those powers would be stripped of said powers.

Oh, wait...no such abuse has yet presented.

My bad...

Don't fret. I have no fear of Airplanes or Helicopters. Not even Black SUVs. You see, unlike others, I tend *not* to let emotional rhetoric affect my ability to utilize logic and common sense. :)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pandaman9000]

Agreed. And it has always been this way. Covert or overt, you will never find a halt in the identification and eradication of threats to the republic. I am very certain that from time to time there is collateral damage and errors of other sorts. I believe the key here is to do your best effort to not be affiliated with known terrorists, especially in a war zone. The government will only go so far before writing your life off as an enemy kill.

Our goals as a country are idealistic. Our achievements towards them are subject to human error and corruption.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwillden]

We the public may not know who is being targeted, but believe me anyone who is targeted knows why they are being targeted. I named one individual I know of as being actively targeted.

The government (who we must never forget is made up of fellow, honest citizens, just trying to do their job, it's not some nebulous malevolent force) isn't just targeting US citizens willy nilly. Even non-US targets require an extensive vetting to be named as a target.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jackbird]

Not when you're a drone pilot.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Rob the Bold]

Yeah .. that's it. We'll just ask for ID cards proving citizenship before we shoot back at someone.

If you are specifically targeting someone, you already have identified them. Targeting isn't a case of getting into a gunfight with someone, killing him, then finding out he's John Doe, US Citizen. It's saying "John Doe, US Citizen, must die. Let's send in the drones to blow up his car."

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[russotto]

Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.

I'm unaware of any part of the US Constitution that grants the executive branch the power to unilaterally revoke citizenship. Furthermore, opposing your own country does NOT deny you all the protections of the Geneva convention, though the Geneva convention does not (obviously) forbid killing your enemy.

The apparent position of the executive branch on this is that they have the power to decide that a given person, regardless of national affiliation, is an "enemy combatant" and to kill him anywhere and anytime so long as he's not on US soil. I find this hard to square with the Fifth Amendment. It's not even remotely similar to an actual battlefield situation.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

So you think it was wrong to kill Confederate troops during the Civil War? We should have just arrested them? That's an interesting take on history.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

"How do you tell if they are an EC?"

Well, the guy gunning down US soldiers might be one... So might that guy selling them guns.

Here's a thought: Instead of trying to find ways the process can be gamed (which is obvious to anyone with a brain), try finding instances in which it *has* been gamed.

FYI: going overseas does not get you labeled an EC....even if you become a citizen of another country. ECs are, by definition, not recognized by *any* country. You don't lose your citizenship by living in Israel unless you utterly fail to come back to the states once every 3 years or simply choose to let it go.

Also, an EC would know it. They don't label the guy who went to Israel to give aid an EC....they label the guy with the gun, mowing down the guys giving aid an EC. (Anyone finding evidence to the contrary is more than welcome to provide it. Such abuse of this power should be dealt with swiftly.)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

The US didn't formally declare a state of war in Korea, Vietnam, the Plains Indian Wars, the Southwest Indian Wars and that didn't stop the bombardment, detainment and killing of enemy combatants and leaders.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

An enemy combatant is anyone affiliated with a non-nationally recognized (our nation or someone else's) military or para-military force currently engaged in open violence against our country, forces, or people.

Perhaps revoked was a misnomer. Irrelevant (superseded?) might be better. EC status supersedes any other label.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Jaysyn]

If we'd bother to actually *declare war* on somebody, anybody, then your argument would have merit. As of right now, it doesn't.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

No, they shouldn't have been arrested, which was my point. They were US citizens, some of whom denounced their citizenship and took up arms. They were treated like combatants. There were summary executions, battles, raiding, destruction of property.

Besides, the use of UAVs with weapons is not a summary execution. UAVs can and have been shot down, it isn't the fault of the US government and military if the people we are attacking don't have any air defense systems.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[seeker_1us]

If US citizens are working as enemy combatants outside of the US, then they should be eligible as military targets as well.

Just to make it clear that the US military has no business going after US citizens on US soil. We have other agencies for that.

Yes, but just being outside the US doesn't allow the government to summarily execute you.

How do you know that every one of these people are combatants?

They haven't had a trial, which as Citizens they have the right to under the constitution. If it were a firefight, that would be different. These are remote control executions. That's really the issue here.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that wrong is wrong, but you must have a much different sense of morality that other people.

That said, if American citizens are actively engaged in hostilities toward American citizens in war, their citizenship status should not protect them from harm at that time. [...]But to put them on a government-sanctioned "hit list" just because you can isn't right.

It must be a twisted american rights thing. No other government would have citizens who think "oh, that guy left my country for one halfway around the world and is on the other side of the war shooting and tossing bombs at us... let's try him." Why would you take a prisoner because he's from your country, when the rest of the enemies won't be taken prisoner at all anyway? I'm not for killing, but on the battlefield an enemy is an enemy.

Might have watched one too many Gundam animes, since enemies and friends change sides more than you can flip a light switch at home, all without court or military repercussions.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[2obvious4u]

I don't think you understand the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People born anywhere in the world of any nationality, race or ethnicity all have the inalienable rights described in the Bill of Rights. They are not something that only US citizens have. The Constitution is an agreement between the residents of the United States and their government granting them special powers over the people. The government does not grant rights to the citizens, the citizens give/loan powers to the government. Those loaned powers can be revoked at any time if the government abuses them (hence the second amendment).
If you look at the constitution it is a blueprint for mediation. First the people are supposed to talk about the issues and come to a resolution through free speech, then when the government doesn't listen and abuses those loaned powers, the citizens using there second amendment rights are supposed to take up arms and remove the government from power and then create a new contract/constitution that re-lends the powers to the government.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

In the post-911 world, we kill'em all and let God sort them out.
Actually, that sentiment is quite old, circa 1209. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah like when FDR called a time out to World War 2 so they could arrest the few thousand Americans who went to fight for Germany. Hitler just gave them up and made a dash for the Arden.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously arguing that someone who:

1) Goes to another country
2) Fights on behalf of that country or a splinter group within it
3) Fights against the US and/or its allies

deserves protections offered by the Bill of Rights? These people are enemy soldiers, not just criminals. They deserve protections under the Geneva Convention, but that's it.

allegedly !!

killing on allegation, saves on court time i guess

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Speare]

Given the current debates about the US-operated and controlled facility at Guantanimo, Cuba, what is your definition of "on US soil"? Is the territory of Puerto Rico "our land"? Is a diplomatic embassy compound in Israel "our land"? Is the space inside a humvee or diplomatic-flagged limousine "our land"? Are we able to ignore our law when we're not on "our land"? I'd say that our written law is the boundaries of what the government can do, not some coordinates on a map. I also say that the law should be written for public consumption (e.g., Army Field Operations Handbook), not hidden behind some classified status. There are documents that must be classified, but the basic rules by which our government defines what is legal and what is not legal, that should be public.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[DM9290]

Sometimes you need the courage to choose the military option, even when you know it means your son might not come back.

How many congressmen have son's on the front lines? And what about daughters?

The people making the decisions are not the people on the front lines. And a drone is NOT entitled to kill in self defense. And putting a name on a list for assassination is hardly self defense.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

European Commission?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Limburgher]

Oh! I can just take your word for it? *Believe you*? Gosh, *now* I feel better. Hey, guys, dwillden say the military's doing the right thing, so they must be!

I'm sorry, but how the hell can you possibly know that? If you do, how is your post not a massively illegal leak?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[MRe_nl]

"If someone shoots at RND.COUNTRY soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a RND.COUNTRIES citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass."

In Europe that's actually called "being in the resistance", and generally thought of as "a good thing". The soldiers are the craven mercenaries, killing and destroying for money, whilst the barely armed civilians are defending life and liberty.
Soldiers on foreign soil are generally invaders, and thus fair game.
Imagine if you will Chinese soldiers on every corner in New York, shooting Chang Hong drone missiles at everyone carrying a gun, and then discussing the fact that some of the victims might be Chinese citizens...

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Easter Candies?

Entertaining Comedians?

Or could it perhaps refer to Enemy Combatants? Ya know...in context with the posts above?

Nah...that'd be silly.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

> Likewise, if a US citizen *allegedly* defects or otherwise joins the 'enemy' in the fight against US forces [...]

Fixed that for you.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[DM9290]

Damn them for being enemy combatants?

Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.

that's ok. we no longer "recognize" the nation we are at war with unless we want some puppet dictator to be our mouthpiece so we can claim their government is on our side and we are just providing humanitarian assistance.

I don't see how any government which can't even secure its own territory has claim to legitimacy or a right to be recognized. regardless of how pro-US it is. Call a spade a spade. We should just send settlers over there and colonize. enough with this hypocrisy.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

So you think it was wrong to kill Confederate troops during the Civil War? We should have just arrested them? That's an interesting take on history.

Wrong to kill troops? Probably not. But would it have been acceptable for Confederates to kill the members of the Underground Railroad?

See what I did there? Flipped your good-guy-bad-guy thing on its head.

The reason this is crucial is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That and the Civil War wasn't a war on a concept. It had a clear enemy, who wore uniforms and lined up in neat lines to be shot.

Things have changed.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[serbanp]

Terrorism is not a cause, it's a symptom.

This is by far the most insightful post in the whole thread. Where are the mod points when I need them?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

In the battlefield of the kind US soldiers face in the Middle East, I think it would be a tad cumbersome to verify the combatant down your gun sight isn't a citizen before pulling the trigger.

First rule of firearm use: Don't point the barrel end at anything you're not ready to kill.

'Tad cumbersome' indeed. If you're fighting a war where you cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys from the innocents, maybe you should stop killing people until you figure it out?

Likewise, if a US citizen defects or otherwise joins the 'enemy' in the fight against US forces, then there is no distinction between the citizen and non-citizens in the target zone.
How it differs from an extrajudicial killing is dubious though, I agree.

Here's a hint, if he's shooting at you, shoot back. If he's on TV making you look bad, don't shoot.

You can take it from there, I'm sure.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

I understand it quite well having dealt with it directly for the majority of my professional and personal (because I actually enjoy it) life.

These self-evident rights are ascribed to every living person and are barred from abridgment by the government except by the limitations set forth in those documents and as allowed by federal law for the protection of Country and the rights of others.

This mandate of protection supersedes individual rights.

While, by example, we are allowed to bear arms and be members of standing military or para-military organizations, *we* are limited by the keyword "standing". The moment that standing military force becomes combative, the government is granted certain leniencies on *their* limitations in the name of protecting said Country and the rights of others.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Martin Blank]

If they are just sitting around and can be apprehended with minimal risk, then of course arrest, charge and try them.

The majority of the hits thus far (at least those reported in the media) have been in either Taliban-held territory in Afghanistan or in the autonomous regions of Pakistan, in both cases definite no-go for arrest operations. At that point, military action becomes the only way of getting at them. If they can be captured, so much the better, but sometimes a remote-kill switch is the only way to handle them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

I'd think the ACLU would seek action in a court of law. Or even a framework of laws that define what is correct and what isn't.

We need to consider ending our military's ability to operate completely outside the law. The police don't need that kind of power, nor fire, nor any other government service group. We'd need to redesign the system, but we should consider it.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

Ouch! Excellent point.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jagapen]

Oh, wait...no such abuse has yet presented.

Exactly. Because the program is secret. Which is why the ACLU is trying to get the details, to ensure that there is no abuse.

You see, unlike others, I tend *not* to let emotional rhetoric affect my ability to utilize logic and common sense. :)

When you start using that logic and common sense, let us know.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Heh...

"We should just send settlers over there and colonize. enough with this hypocrisy."

Interestingly enough, that has, almost exactly, been my thought as well. What better way to change a country than from within?

The idea of open-borders as a method to bring about a sense of equality among "nations" has been around since man first started forming communities.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Runaway1956]

/sarcasm/ Yeah, you're right. The last time I happened to stroll across a battlefield, there were referees out there, taking names, and checking that everyone was shooting at the proper targets, preventing anyone shooting at a civilian. This is the civilized way of running a war, after all. /end sarcasm/

Seriously, dude. If you're on a battlefield, anyone with a weapon is either "friend" or "foe", and if you ain't sure, then he's "foe".

As for the ACLU, or anyone else who objects to carefully targetted killing - what do they prefer? Bomb and napalm a village off the face of the earth, and hope that the intended victim died with all the villagers? These drones are a far more humane way to rid yourself of enemies, than using bombers loaded with thousands of tons of bombs.

Do they really want to go back to the days of Dresden and Hiroshima? "Kill them all, let God sort them out!"

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jagapen]

"How do you tell if they are an EC?"

Well, the guy gunning down US soldiers might be one... So might that guy selling them guns.

That's not how it works, though. With these targeting killings, the guys in Arizona can't do investigation with a drone 1,000 feet in the air. They get passed intelligence that a target is in a particular location. They pilot the drone to that location, do some cursory verification that the situation looks like the scenario they were told to look for (e.g. a caravan of vehicles or a building) and they blow it up.

We wanna know where that intelligence came from for these targeted killings. I don't think anybody is losing any sleep over drones blowing up guys engaged in firefights with U.S. troops.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Kumiorava]

There is easy way to find out if they are guilty of the terrorist acts. Just fire the judgement missile using the freedom drone. If the target dies, then he/she was a terrorist and mission was a great success.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Runaway1956]

It may be prudent to avoid consorting with terrorists while you're overseas, tending to your personal business? You know, if Osama should happen to invite you to dinner with him and his harem, and a few hundred guests at his favorite mountain training resort, you might want to turn him down. Or, if he asks you to costar with him in his next videotaped public statement, you might tell him that you're unworthy of the honor. And, you might wish to refuse the offer of moving packages of unnamed material from one place to another for him.

Really, dude - do you fear that you might become a target if you visit Pakistan to arrange for transportation and distribution of a few thousand tons of rice? (I said RICE, not RICIN!) Get serious - those drones and the missiles are expensive. They aren't going to waste them on some chump who doesn't pose any kind of a threat.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[WindBourne]

What makes you think that? If the military is involved in a war on our soils, I EXPECT that they will use the drones that we currently have flying overhead (and yes, we do fly drones over America).

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Achromatic1978]

but believe me anyone who is targeted knows why they are being targeted

You owe me a new monitor, I just sprayed coffee on mine laughing at this statement.

Really? I guess all the people on no fly lists, up to and including at times US congressmen, they all know why they are (wrongly) on the no fly list (which makes them active targets), right?

Ye gods.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[ArcCoyote]

Yes, but they are surveillance drones, mostly on the US-Mexico border. I don't believe they are armed.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[I'm not really here]

Imagine now that there's a reasonable, level-headed, senior Al-Qaida leader that wants to open talks. Can he trust our government to not simply stuff him in a secret Cuban prison?

Not necessarily (and I don't blame him), but he can trust the UN, Pakistan, and a couple of other options that could open up legitimate talks.

How do we know that there aren't already detainees of this type??

Honestly, we don't, and that bothers me greatly. If those in "gitmo" get their fair trials, or are moved to more sane secure locations where torture doesn't occur, as Obama is trying to get done, then perhaps we'll hear of these poor souls, and talks will begin.

What if, though, we selected the option where we did the least amount of killing, and suffered the least amount of loss of life? Let them kill each other for a while? Why not?

I think it's beyond that point now. I think that if we pulled out now, that while they'd start fighting each other eventually, right now, we'd be the target. We've given the multiple terrorist organizations a single large threat to focus on, which has a way of unifying otherwise mortal enemies.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwillden]

Simple, who do you think the Military/Government is? It's made up of your fellow citizens. The military have all sworn to defend the constitution, as have many of the other government employees.

These days people love to accuse the Government or Military, of being some nebulous, all powerful, malignant force striving to enslave us all. But they are not such beings, those entities (Gov/Military) are made up of normal people, trying to do their jobs the best they can.

Do some make mistakes and cross the line as to what is acceptable or beneficial? unfortunately yes, but they are the exceptions not the rule.

How is my post a leak? The processes for establishing targets is not classified. although some of the criteria being used may be, the processes are not. Google Army FM's on Analysis.

As to this situation: if someone is actively committing treason, they know it. And should be fairly confidant that the country they so despise will take them out if it gets the opportunity. That is what the "believe me" part was about. The targeted individuals are actively working against our very way of life, let alone our country and various faiths (or lack thereof).

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwillden]

No fly lists is a far cry from being on an active target list. If you destroyed your monitor, sorry you don't understand the difference.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

*laughing*

Now do tell me, Oh Great Wearer of the Tinfoil Hat: Where did I say what the ACLU is requesting is a *bad* thing?

Did I? Perhaps I missed it....I so often forget that which I have personally typed...

Oh, right...I didn't. I rather instead responded to your inane emotional rhetoric. Well, that was my mistake....

Perhaps you missed the post I initially responded to claiming ECs were protected? Perhaps *that* is what my comments have been in reference to?

Perahps...just perhaps...it had little, if anything to do with the ACLU's current requests?

Nah...that would imply you were a knee-jerking reactionary instead of the honest, informed poster doing such things as actually reading for context that we all know you to be, right?

I must have been calling the ACLU a bunch of nosey, whiney brats....somewhere....

Right?

When you start being able to follow basic comment threading...let us know. Thanks.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it take for someone to be an "enemy combatant"? A nod from you stazi?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[TheRaven64]

You seem to be missing the point that these are drone attacks aimed at specific individuals. This is not an airstrike or an artillery bombardment against an area, it's a precision strike (at least in intent, if not in practice), against a specific person.

Ignore the drones for a moment. Would you agree that there is a difference between a US citizen being in an enemy encampment that the military targets, and a US army sniper being told to shoot a specific US citizen? The latter is exactly what the ACLU is claiming is happening in these cases.

If US citizens are the target of these attacks, then they are being executed without any civilian oversight. They are being individually targeted. If they had been tried - even in absentia - and found guilty of a capital crime, then this would not be a problem (legally - you may have moral objections to your judiciary being able to kill your citizens).

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the article is mixing different concepts into one path of thinking and the two do not really mix.

I don't understand the goal of the ACLU or the author here.
Targeting specific individuals to kill is a concern.
Using an unmanned drone to do carry out that action is another issue all together.
These issues should be treated seperately, not as one. Is it okay to have a list of potential targets and march into their home and kill them with a hand gun? Is it okay to use a drone to shoot the bullet? Is it okay to drop a bomb on their house with a manned aircraft? Is it okay to drop a bomb on their house with an unmanned drone? The method used is a completely different concept of even having a list of people you want to kill.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Well, sorry, worked in the industry (not the US, but in a NATO member country). Military spec stuff might mean high quality to the average person. People that do work in the field, know it's anything but that. And the chances that something gets covered up are way better than in many civil industries. (The best part was high end radar systems that didn't even manage to detect the existence of a threat; guess that means they failed also an all the more advanced analysis stuff *g*)

Ah, and the people that work there are just humans too. That human factor is what makes the lengthy review process of death sentences necessary. Wonder if the White House (or whoever ends up with the power of life and death) also takes a decade for review of their death lists?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[TheRaven64]

And what is the process for revoking citizenship? The state already has a process for revoking the right to life. You can be tried, in absentia if necessary, found guilty of a capital crime, and sentence to death. I don't know if assassination by drone counts as a cruel and unusual punishment according to the constitution, but given that the electric chair doesn't it's probably fine. Once sentence has been passed, it can be executed. Until then, the person is an alleged enemy combatant and is innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, if they are engaged in military action and die as a result then this is not an issue, but we're talking about targeted attacks on individuals, not military engagements.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

I think it's beyond that point now. I think that if we pulled out now, that while they'd start fighting each other eventually, right now, we'd be the target. We've given the multiple terrorist organizations a single large threat to focus on, which has a way of unifying otherwise mortal enemies.

You're probably right. I'd still suggest we suck it up and brace for the hit. We'll get out eventually. Either by choice, by force, or by going broke. But it can't be maintained indefinitely, and as we said we'll be screwed when that happens - no matter how it happens.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably US Citizens like Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, whom we recently thought had been arrested, but unfortunately was not. He is wanted for treason and has a one million dollar price on his head. He is actively working against the US, has been indicted for treason, the first case since the 50's, and is therefore a viable target.

Thank you! I was afraid I was the only one who remembered the t word. (Treason, that is. It's a crime.)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people would consider your 2 examples as examples of abuse. I know I do.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Wrong.

I am not involved with, nor a member of, any military or para-military organization currently involved in combat with US or US-allied forces or people; hence...I am not an enemy combatant.

Nice try though.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Guess, if the Chinese government decides that you are a terrorist (e.g. you oppose Communism or oppose censorship and are successful with this), and puts your name of a death list, and assassinates you, you are okay with this? I mean, that are really honest fellow communists in the Chinese government that decided that, right?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Achromatic1978]

Really? What do you think the No Fly List is? Is it a list of "People who are adjudged to be a threat to the safety of these United States and her people", or is it a list of "people who may or may not have characteristics in common or other traits that resemble people who are adjudged to be a threat to the safety of these United States and her people"?

See how many people face issues every time they attempt to get on a plane because while in principle the No Fly List is meant to be the former, in reality it resembles the latter to a huge degree, and practice the art of extrapolation, and then take a moment to remember the consequences when the result of that list goes from being "be denied passage, be detained against will without cause, suffer financial harm and damage, and beyond" to "be the target of lethal weaponry from a military vehicle".

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware the confusion over the term "targeting".

This is NOT about "targeting" as in "I am aiming at that bad-guy. Oops, a bit too low, aim higher."

No, the ACLU means "targeting" as in "I know exactly who that US-citizen is and we're going to go after him".

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

I agree wholeheartedly.

There is nothing wrong with making all possible and reasonable attempts to verify any and all information that could lead the death, injury, or loss of status of any individual.

That's never been a contention as far as I am concerned.

That said, being a member of a military organization currently committing acts of violence against US forces is pretty much a giveaway...don't you think?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are some US citizens that are actively working with the Taliban. If US citizens are working as enemy combatants then they should be eligible as targets as well.

If US citizens are working with the Taliban, then they are traitors and should have their citizenship revoked due to a willful act of treason.

I see a loophole.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Rakishi]

There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields. A big difference. If soldiers hoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong. If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong. furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shootign ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken. Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honorable thing. The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of.

If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jagapen]

Still waiting for that logic, rather than this sophistry.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Logically, if this is typical power of a government, then this applies to all governments.

Guess you are happy the the Russian agencies are murdering (guess what the correct verb is I mean murder is only for the people that have not yet accepted that the government has the power of death and life without review) people abroad, like the UK?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose your citizenship by committing treason. It says it right in the passport.

As such, traitors are enemy combatants, regardless of whether they lived in the US as a US Citizen prior to committing treason.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Well good, I'm glad we agree then. I don't know what set me off in your post now that I read it again...maybe I responded to the wrong one?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

And I wonder if you are also okay with the Libyan government deciding to blow up some planes. They really had that death list twice checked. Really. And the couple dozen innocent bystanders are okay for the US, so they are okay if Libya does it, right?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Revoke was a bad choice of words on my part. Sorry about that.

EC status does not revoke citizenship, it simply supersedes it (my new word of the day thanks to this misuse of "revoke").

One's status as a citizen is not revoked, but rather, topped by one's involvement in a military action against the US as part of a military organization that is not recognized by any nation, thus giving one the status of Enemy Combatant and allowing certain limitations upon our government to be lifted in order to protect the Country, it's People, and it's Forces.

I am all for the ACLU getting this info so long as *they* don't misuse it. Oversight in a situation such as this is completely necessary so we can be assured that those *not* qualifying as enemy combatants are not targeted.

That said, I have no problem with, morally or legally, the executing of anyone who, after due diligence, is deemed an enemy combatant.

I have to wonder how many people responding to my comments even really know what qualifies as an enemy combatant... *shrug*

Ah well, discussion is discussion... :)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

No, it's clearly something else. The problem is it, they cannot manage a list of suspects in half-open (because people see that they cannot fly and complain), so what makes you think that they'll manage perfectly without review in secret?

(You do realize that quite a bit of death sentences even in the US get vacated => so where's the quality assurance for the death list?)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

they would put people on the list for no reason. they always have to have a reason ready to satisfy the public. they might put you on the list as a 'terrorist' or 'enemy combatant'...because you didn't pay your taxes. what sounds absurd today may not sound absurd tomorrow. labels are not absolute and concrete. labels are subjective and ever evolving. the federal government has been twisting and spinning The Constitution to wield abusive power ever since the Civil War.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Scrameustache]

Damn them for being enemy combatants?

Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.

1- I don't believe it's that easy to lose your citizenship, so citation needed.

2- The geneva convention still maintains that "unlawful combatants" can't be tortured: "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity (GCIV Article 5)"

Furthermore, you're replying to someone who mentioned the bill of rights, and it clearly defines rights of "people", "persons" and additional rights for "citizens". The bits about fair trials and whatnot apply to "people" and "persons", voting rights and similar apply exclusively to citizens. That's because the founding fathers of the united states were not bloodthirsty xenophobes. Slave owning libidinous hemp growers, sure, but otherwise fine upstanding people.

You may like to pretend that you can label people "foreigners" or "unlawful combatants" and thus gain the legal leeway to treat them with complete inhumanity, but the US constitution says otherwise, and the Geneva conventions say otherwise.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[517714]

War sucks ... it's even worse when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and hides like cowards among the civilian populations, using women and children to hide behind. If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a US citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass.

Could you please explain to me how when American soldiers occupy a city it is so very different than enemy combatants occupying the city that also happens to be their home? If they abandon the city in which they live are they not abandoning and thereby putting their families at risk? I don't think the ID cards will work; perhaps the solution is to buy our enemies uniforms?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

For them, it does.

1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions ...

committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States

They lose.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Not at all. I don't even have to be involved (and would rather not be, for that matter).

An enemy Combatant is merely someone involved with, or a member of, a non-recognized (by any country) military or para-military organization currently involved in active aggression against our forces, people, or property.

Further: It does *not* apply to standing military groups within the US as this is protected by our founding documents (keyword, "standing"; meaning, not in active aggression with the US). It also does *not* apply to military forces of other countries who are, as national militias, protected by the Geneva Convention. It obviously also does *not* apply to Joe SixPack (or Achmed) waving a gun at a supermarket.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Kreigaffe]

So if a child is yelling and the parent yells at the child to stop it, in your opinion both are equally in the wrong. The parent should have calmly and diplomatically explained to the (still yelling) child how much they'd like it if the child would just stop, please. Yes, that's totally reasonable. Oh wait, no, you live in a fantasy fucking world where everybody is willing to act rationally and only resorts to violence when confused or afraid, never because they're just bad fucking people with no respect for life.

I'm sure you're right, though. I suggest you begin your process of explaining to american gangs and mexican cartels why they don't ACTUALLY need to be killing anyone to accomplish their goals, they just need to sit down and TAAAALLLKK.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[dwillden]

Okay with it, probably not. Not that I'd be able to complain. But if the Chinese gov decides to target me. That would be an act of war by the Chinese against the US. Slightly different case.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

You didn't flip anything on its head because I didn't infer there was a good guy or a bad guy--only the government forces had every right to kill the enemy forces.

But you are right...the other people's "freedom fighters" (enemy combatants for those of us on the side for human progress) are exactly that--they fight against freedom whenever they can. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong. Killing beard police in the name of fighting terrorism is one of those.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't shooting invading soldiers while not in uniform then hiding in civilian centers constitute a valid counter-strategy to the disproportionate force employed by the invading army? We were kind of happy when this was happening in WWII, and face it, Americans would do the exact same thing if their homeland was occupied.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Also wanted to ask, did you ever wonder why there aren't many German films depicting Germany as the Good Guys in World War II? (hint: because on all accounts, they were the bad guys). Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

...

Still waiting for you to make a point...

Was there one? We apparently agree on the ACLU making the request, so what is it you have an issue with?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Citizen of Earth]

Wish I had mod points today.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

"They get passed intelligence that a target is in a particular location"

One would hope that intelligence is good.

"We wanna know where that intelligence came from for these targeted killings."

Agreed. I would also like to know what assurances there are the target hasn't moved by the time the strike is made.

Contrary to what seems to be the consensus, I am not against the ACLU's request. Nor am I for "drone" attacks. I believe they are spotty at best. Like the hand-grenade, they are not incredibly accurate as I understand it.

My comments were spawned due to someone elses statement that enemy combatants were protected citizens...nothing more. The examples given were not meant to be examples the story covered.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[mccrew]

Why does self defense even matter? That's irrelevant.

Enemy leadership are valid targets. Doesn't matter whether we use a drone, an Apache, or a grunt toting his M-16 to get the job done.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[element-o.p.]

Oh, wait...no such abuse has yet presented.

Has it? How would you know? That is why the ACLU is filing suit -- to determine whether or not such an abuse has occurred.

I tend *not* to let emotional rhetoric affect my ability to utilize logic and common sense. :)

jagapen wasn't using emotional rhetoric. jagapen was personalizing what the powers the ACLU is suing over ultimately means. If you -- either you personally or "you" in the generic way it is often used meaning "some undetermined person" -- are added to a Predator drone hit list, there is no chance to appeal the decision that you should be assassinated because you won't even know you have been targeted until you are in the drone's sights. Honestly, I think the problem is broader than drones. If you are marked for assassination by *any* TLA or the military, then it is a violation of due process (which historically, the court has held is not limited to U.S. citizens). And I question your claim of "common sense", since as I see it, common sense is the reasoning ability that says, "Hey, historically governments that have had the ability and the latitude to off someone whenever they felt like it, with no oversight at all, have not been particularly pleasant for the general population. Maybe we should put measures in place to keep that from happening again." If you don't see the problem with the government being allowed to target and assassinate anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight then I question either your education (specifically your knowledge of human history) or your logic and common sense.

I have no fear of...Black SUVs.

I do, albeit for reasons entirely unrelated to this article. I ride a motorcycle, and I've noticed that the amount of attention paid by the average driver is inversely proportional to the mass of his or her vehicle. Therefore, I greatly fear SUV's, whether black, or any other color :) They have a great deal of momentum and the driver frequently is engaged in tasks other than driving.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

Nazis are an exception because of the holocaust.

There are Japanese films depicting them as 'good guys', even though they lost.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[HornWumpus]

No, the detainees don't fall under the Geneva Conventions because they are not uniformed combatants (and they have had enough time to settle on a standard uniform is they so desired).

That is in fact a reasonable arguement. The Geneva Conventions never applied to non-uniformed partisans (or spies as they used to be called).

Q: Why do you think the Vietcong wore 'black pajamas'?

A: So the Geneva conventions would apply.

When they went 'plain clothes' they were on occasion legally, summarily executed. The example that springs to mind was the photographs taken of the dude getting his head blown off during Tet. That was a legal summary execution. Not that anyone will teach you that in US history. Legal, smegal. It was unpopular and helped end the US involvement in Vietnam.

'They' have rewritten many international treaties in the last 20 years however.

On the face of it it seams they have outlawed the effective practice war (how can any nation wage ware and respect all the 'rights of children' recently pulled from some idiots backside.)

Funny how reality routes around the law.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[locallyunscene]

You're confusing the issue, hopefully unintentionally. The ACLU isn't asking American soldiers to collect ID cards from people shooting at them.

It's asking for oversight, presumably for constitutional protections, for any citizens added to this kill-on-drone-sight list.

I think this is very important, more so than seems at first glance. Given gov't willingness to fly drones into sovereign countries we're not at war with and close ties between the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" this could easily evolve into a very scary control mechanism.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

Sometimes there is a right and a wrong. Killing beard police in the name of fighting terrorism is one of those.

Or, to paraphrase "if their ideology is different from mine, it is not wrong to kill them".

I fail to see how killing a person will kill a concept like terrorism. If anything, you're encouraging it every time you kill, because through your own words you're never accountable for what you do, so long as your casual labels fit. All you need to is apply the 'terrorist' label, or 'beard police' or whatever, without even defining what that means, and you get to kill whomever you want.

My question in this context, though, is - why bother with the label? It really seems like an extraneous step.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Labcoat Samurai]

War sucks ...

Not accusing you specifically, but it seems that this statement is commonly just a lazy argument to justify just about anything we might do in wartime. Stuff like "War sucks, but there was no way to know that kid didn't have a bomb strapped to him" or "War sucks, but wiping out that city block was the only way to be sure we killed so-and-so". And some of those things do have legitimate justifications depending on circumstances, but it's too easy to dismissively recognize that bad things happen in war.

If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk.

Which might be a deterrent... if they were *his* friends and family. When we shoot at such people anyway, we are making the judgment that it is more important for this person to be dead than it is for the people around him to be alive. It's a hard judgment to stomach, though it does seem compelling to me in some situations.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

However, with these drones, they are specifically targeting people.

Would you prefer that we go back to carpet-bombing?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Hurricane78]

Go ahead Trollerators! Stay ignorant. Watch FOX News. Drink the Kool-Aid. How you love it.
And get rolled over by China in about a decade. Which you will resemble anyway, by then. ^^

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

That's not the point. The people targeted can be as guilty as the Devil himself.

1.) you've got the problem with oversight. So what do you do if the relevant authorities designate you an EC (btw, not that this is any relevant term, it's an invention, because it's to inconvenient to treat criminals like Osama Bin Laden as criminals)

2.) what do you do if some foreign government decides to kill you? (Hint: The Russian government has assassinated British citizens in the UK in the past)

Basically, you are argueing that anything goes, if it's good for the "country". Who are you that you would deny that argumentation to anyone else? The anyone else just might have a different "country", and might consider all Americans criminals worthy of capital punishment.

3.) Last but not least, there are collateral damages if you decide to kill Mr. X by bombing him. Perhaps not in every and each case, but in a good number of cases. Guess they should have considered whom they socialize with. So why don't put the neighbors of murderers (or their whole family) on death row too?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jedidiah]

Bush's obvious excuse for ignoring the Geneva convention for SOLDIERS would be that these detaines are not SOLDIERS.

The Geneva convention protects SOLDIERS captured on the battlefield.

If you aren't a uniformed soldier part of a regular army then you can be SUMMARILY SHOT under the Geneva convention.

If you are going to bother to wave the rules in everyone face then you should not try to neglect the inconvenient ones.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jedidiah]

YES.

If you are acting in the role of a partisan and you get caught, those that catch you get to EXECUTE you on the spot.

It doesn't matter if you Harriet Tubman in South Carolina or a Polish Partisan fighting the Nazis.

It sucks. Then again it usually sucks to be in the position of considering being a Partisan.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Rich0]

I don't think that confederate soliders are a good comparison here. Soldiers fighting in uniform are fundamentally different than anybody fighting out of uniform.

Confederate soldiers who surrendered would have been imprisoned until the end of the war, but they would not have otherwise been punished in any way.

In any case, if somebody is conducting military activities against the US, then they are a valid military target. There is a fundamental difference between civilian law enforcement and military operations.

That said, I'm all for capturing such fighters when practical, and enemy soldiers (even illegal combatants) should be offered a means of surrender. That doesn't mean that when you sneak up on somebody that you have to stand up and ask them to surrender before you start shooting - only that in general you need to respect the white flag and allow people to lay down their arms if they proactively choose to do so.

I think the issue of armed drones is a red herring. The same issues apply anytime forces collide outside of small personal encounters. When you're a bomber at 30k feet you drop a bomb on your target - you don't first do a room-by-room search of the target to see who is inside and ask them politely if they want to go to jail instead of being blown up.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Bob9113]

In the battlefield of the kind US soldiers face in the Middle East, I think it would be a tad cumbersome to verify the combatant down your gun sight isn't a citizen before pulling the trigger.

There is a chasm of difference between pulling the trigger on an enemy combatant on an active battlefield and remotely targeting a specific person who is not engaged in active combat.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.

Holy shit, are you naive.
Just about every conflict going on in the world right now has no such clear delineation and frequently the 'winners' are the badder guys because they were just that much more vicious than the losers - until they get around to writing their own history books. The situation with the Tamil Tigers being one recent example.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

The problem is with that this would imply superseding the constitution, wonder if you consider that a good idea too?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Runaway1956]

My point is, he's an armed man on a battlefield. He aint' a friend. He's a target. His citizenship means nothing. I have no objections, whatsoever.

As has already been pointed out, a number of those people being targeted have already renounced their citizenship. I do not regard them as citizens, even if they come back and say, "I didn't mean it!".

Oversight. Hmmm. Who should do oversight, I wonder? Congress is the end-all and be-all for military authority. I guess congress has oversight. Do I want to see that oversight delegated to someone like the ACLU? No way. I'd be happier with no oversight at all.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Let me repeat this yet again.

war => implies a declaration of war by congress, with a number explicit legal side effects => Somehow I've missed that.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Nazis are an exception because of the holocaust.

There are Japanese films depicting them as 'good guys', even though they were the bad guys for attacking the US for no reason and siding with the Nazis.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a parent should maintain calm and not yell back at a yelling child. It's practically parenting 101 to lead by example. Something US foreign policy never does either.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[yacc143]

Guess it supersedes the constitution too? (And hint, the USA are not at war; no declaration of war has been voted out, prove me wrong on that one)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[QuantumPion]

Actually it would be quite convenient to follow the law. The law being the Geneva convention, which states that unorganized non-uniformed combatants that hide amongst civilians are supposed to be immediately executed upon capture for violating the rules of warfare.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

"If you don't see the problem with the government being allowed to target and assassinate anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight then I question either your education (specifically your knowledge of human history) or your logic and common sense."

WTFH???

Where do you get "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight" from "Enemy Combatant"???

"Enemy Combatant" is clearly defined, and it's definition is nowhere even close to what you suggest.

"jagapen was personalizing what the powers the ACLU is suing over ultimately means."

I never once said I was against it. Ever. Seriously... where did you even get that impression???? I *want* it defined. I *want* it verified. Hell, I don't even think they should be using drones...they have the accuracy of a drunk throwing a grenade, ffs....

Someone stated Enemy Combatants were protected citizens. I stated, correctly, that this was not the case. That is all. At which point I was accused of being one? Of being against the ACLU request?

Perhaps I need to stop taking what is obvious to me for granted? Obviously I would want whoever is making the claims of anyone else being an EC to be able to verify it, to have it checked, re-checked, and checked again. Obviously such a thing should have oversight. Obviously "Enemy Combatant" shouldn't be just another way of saying, "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight".

Obviously...such things aren't as obvious as they should be.

*sigh* But thanks for this bit...

"the amount of attention paid by the average driver is inversely proportional to the mass of his or her vehicle."

Too true. I drove a Geo Metro for several years and know of what you speak.. God forbid the SUV is pulling a trainer o *any* kind. Perhaps I do fear SUVs after all.. ;)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

SUV pulling a trailer of any kind! Spell check failed me...

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[MRe_nl]

"There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields".
Agreed, one is a status, the other a tactic. It must be pointed out that the French, Dutch and Danish resistance (which i'm somewhat familiar with) used children during the second world war in a number of roles. Even the use of children as "shields" is not limited to any one side or party in any given conflict.
"If soldiers shoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong".
Agreed. All though the definition of ambulance leaves much to be wanting, even in the Geneva convention. A taxi carrying wounded insurgents would be fair game.
"If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong".
Agreed, but i don"t think the right response would be to start shooting at ambulances.
"Furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shooting ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken".
I don't agree with that. You have to assume most ambulances will still be normal. Searching them
should be the furthest one should go, and not even that if at all possible. Also "blame" is somewhat irrelevant. Can i prosecute soldiers for shooting wounded and unarmed medics?
"Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honourable thing".
I understand, but i think that has more to do with the fact that he was your grandfather.
Honourable is a many faced beast. "Honourable" samurai cut down peasants as if their lives were worthless, "Honourable" Prussian Officers led the Wehrmacht etc etc.
"The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of".
Not "on the other hand" at all. The Nazi's would also have approved most of the tactics the Americans are using. All Empires, by tradition and necessity, use the same plans of conquest and subjugation.

"If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you".
The world is made of shades of grey, not black and white. There is no truth, only perception.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[wwfarch]

The question wasn't whether or not there is precedent here but whether or not they should be summarily executed. There are arguments for both sides but the fact that we executed people in the past doesn't mean it is the right thing to do today.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Or, to paraphrase "if their ideology is different from mine, it is not wrong to kill them".

That is a poor paraphrase. A better one would be their ideology is so offensively dangerous to the plight of humankind that is is not wrong to kill them.

I fail to see how killing a person will kill a concept like terrorism.

I never inferred it would. But not killing terrorists hasn't done much to stop terrorism either, so time to explore our options.

or 'beard police' or whatever, without even defining what that means,

Beard Police is a perfectly self-explanatory, concise example of the types of ideologies on this planet that should be eradicated.

why bother with the label? It really seems like an extraneous step.

The label provides a method of identifying the target.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Zxern]

Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it right today.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Stiletto]

Define "battlefield"

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pclminion]

So what you're saying is it's too expensive to behave morally?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

You can totally own me if you change your example to something dealing with Vietnam, though.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

1.) The more oversight the better. I can't believe we're arguing about this...

2.) What do you do if seagulls crap on your window while driving 80mph around a tight curve? Seriously...has about the same answer, does it not? ...and we have about the same amount of control over it.

3.) The drones are a bad idea. Never said it was a good one. About as accurate as a drunk throwing a grenade....

"So what do you do if the relevant authorities designate you an EC (btw, not that this is any relevant term, it's an invention, because it's to inconvenient to treat criminals like Osama Bin Laden as criminals)"

Not claiming any moral or ethical stand on this. It is a phrase with a legal and valid definition that defines a specific legal status. There are specific things they are, and specific things they are not. As human beings, we feel this incessant urge to define everything we encounter and to give them unique names. We're funny that way.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd speculate that the State Department would rule that US citizens engaged in terror plots are taking actions that compels belief that such person does not intend to retain citizenship, and therefore are no longer citizens.

Its the vague sort of wording that the federal government loves to use in a generic catch-all CYA fashion. Rightly or wrongly, the US recognizes loss of citizenship when it is voluntarily surrendered, the holder is convicted of treason, or as mentioned above.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you specify what law prevents the killing in battle of an American citizen who has gone over to the other side? Doesn't it suck when you can't recite platitudes and are required to produce a citation to an authority for your proposition? Don't go to law school with this type of reasoning - you will walk out of your first class with a second orifice.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

God...

You do not know what an enemy combatant is.

Hint: It's not just an enemy we are combating.

Strictly: ECs are not part of any national military force for any country. (This is why they are not protected by the Geneva Convention...it's not because we really really hate them...they are simply not part of any country that signed the document, and thus not subject to abide by the agreements made therein).

To be at war, we must declare war...on a specific country. As Enemy Combatants, by definition, are not aligned with *any* country, we cannot declare war on them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[TheRaven64]

My point is, he's an armed man on a battlefield. He aint' a friend. He's a target. His citizenship means nothing. I have no objections, whatsoever.

This is only true if you regard an entire country (Pakistan, which is technically one of your allies) as a battlefield. This isn't about shooting at people who are armed and in a conflict situation. This isn't about throwing artillery shells, grenades, or missiles at military targets. This is about the US military launching targeted attacks to kill specific US citizens on foreign soil because they are believed to be engaged in activities against the USA.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jimbolauski]

So we should send in troops to raid a stronghold to arrest a traitor risking many lives and creating a mouthpiece for opposition or we could blow up said individual. Sounds like an easy choice to me.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[KDR_11k]

They're running around in a war zone, you can't exactly send police after them. If they join the ranks of the enemy they're targets.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[LWATCDR]

In theory yes. But if they are actively involved in combat operation with the US as the target then it is bit difficult to arrest them.
It is odd that people find these hit lists strange. They are a target list. A general or command is a military asset no different than a radar site, ship, aircraft hanger, or tank. They are high value soft targets. In the old days you would use a sniper when possible or you would bomb a base or town into rubble if not to take out command and control assets.

This is nothing new except now the sniper is a drone and we don't have to bomb an entire town to take out one person.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jimbolauski]

If the Citizen is actively trying to kill Americans then they can be killed, if they pose a threat they can be eliminated. The bottom line is if a Citizen has aligned himself with the enemy then they will be treated as an enemy.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[sjames]

The Confederate combatants had voluntarily surrendered their U.S. citizenship by declaring themselves to be loyal to the Confederate States of America.

There's also a difference between killing someone who is among the ranks of the enemy in combat and targeting a specific individual for execution because we believe they're working for the enemy.

It's the same reason police can't simply execute someone they believe has committed a capital offense without a trial.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[KDR_11k]

To be fair if he has a line of fire on US soldiers then I'd hope those soldiers fire back and kill him with bullets rather than requesting an air strike.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jimbolauski]

See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!

Guess we know which one you are.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[LWATCDR]

Except this person is in a military/terrorist compound.
Also just how do you suggest we arrest someone that is in a rebel area of a foreign nation? Extradition is a bit tricky wouldn't you say.
Guess what if a sniper is in a combat area and he sees a US citizen in the service of an enemy he becomes a legitimate target. Heck he becomes a high value target.
We are not talking about Michigan or anyplace where our police can function. This is in a combat zone so yes you can toss civil law right out the window.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

"get to", yes, but the rape gangs in Darfur "get to" do quite a few crimes as well.

"Is is right or wrong", was the issue.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[KDR_11k]

So soldiers of enemy nations are not enemy combatants? What are they then, enemy peace lovers?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[corbettw]

If they're in the theater of operations for the war and there's intel showing them to be part of the planning staff for Al Qaeda or the Taliban or whoever, then that's it. There are no civil rights in a war zone; there are no legal niceties beyond avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering (which is what the Geneva Convention aims for). So I say, kill the bastards and let their version of invisible sky wizard sort them out.

No one's arguing that the US government (or any other government, for that matter) be able to do this on our own soil (or maybe there are, there are nutcases out there who probably would think it's a good idea). My argument, at least, is if these people are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other Randomstan, they're legitimate targets and their termination should be prosecuted using whatever tools are best suited to the job, without worrying about whether a judge agrees with the military and intelligence community.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Silver Surfer 1]

Operation Garden plot has been around since the early 60's and came about as a result of the civil rights movement and the riots in LA and Detroit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/garden_plot.htm

US troops have been deployed during the Detroit riots, the LA Riots, Sept. 11th and during Katrina.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Naive my ass. I'm a 17-year Intelligence Professional in the Middle East/North Africa region. Notice I said "not always". However, I can think of two pretty clear "bad guy" scenarios, and they both start with "World War".

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[BobMcD]

That is a poor paraphrase. A better one would be their ideology is so offensively dangerous to the plight of humankind that is is not wrong to kill them.

Like that of the Christians during the crusades? Or of the Spaniards during the conquest of the Americas?

I never inferred it would. But not killing terrorists hasn't done much to stop terrorism either, so time to explore our options.

Let's be honest here, we've been exploring this option for nearly a decade. We can safely draw inferences as to whether or not this war will ever be won.

Beard Police is a perfectly self-explanatory, concise example of the types of ideologies on this planet that should be eradicated.

Did you know that Mormons wear magical underwear? Did you know that Amish and Mennonite communities also have dress codes? If you promise not to try and kill them, too, I can link you some material.

The label provides a method of identifying the target.

No, it does not. That's the entire point of the objection. The label is arbitrary and identifies nothing. It can be added and/or removed at random as there is no possible way to verify it. It is an opinion, rather than a fact.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[sjames]

Yes, they do. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. If it can ever magically not apply, the list of reasons would grow until littering became grounds for suspension.

It's one thing if they get killed in combat with U.S. troops, it's another if a drone is sent out to find and kill them specifically wherever they might be (within the range of the drone, naturally) and whatever they are doing.

They should be apprehended, tried, convicted (if they are indeed guilty) and sentenced. If the sentence is death, then kill them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

While the United States is certainly not perfect when it comes to the execution of military procedures, the fact is that in most cases, the United States has played by the established rules of engagement. Yes, the united States has ABSOLUTELY engaged in military pursuits that have been unethical end illegal, but just remember that the United States fights an enemy who does not recognize ANY such rules other than what they interpret in their holy books.

And to those who complain about how the U.S. treats its prisoners, enemy combatants, or whatever PC term you wish to use, the fact remains that prisoners of the United States have it far easier and are treated far more humanely than what the U.S. soldiers face.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Depends on whether you are referring to simply "the enemy", or the legally defined entity known as "Enemy Combatants".

"the enemy" can be anyone.

"enemy combatants", in the legal sense, are not affiliated with any nationally supported militia of any country. Al-Queda, for example, is such a military organization. They hold claim to no country and no country supports them. As such, they did not sign the Geneva Conventions, do not have to abide by them, and are not subject to them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[sjames]

But not an appropriate target until that indictment becomes a conviction.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jimbolauski]

If a person is deemed a target for a strike they have to go through the same rules of engagement as any other target US citizen or not. You do not have the same rights on the battle field as you do in the US yes there can be mistakes but unless there is evidence of targeting civilians that are known to be innocent nothing needs to change.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Runaway1956]

We don't seem to be communicating very well. As nearly as I can tell, people being targeted are high value people, who have engaged in warfare against our nation. Joe makes suicide bomb packs? He's a target. Bill transports supplies to hidden Taliban strongholds? He's a target. What's his name that makes bin Laden's press releases? He's a target. Some other dude is a courier between Taliban strongholds? Target. I don't care that he is or is not a citizen. If he's an active participant in this irregular armed force that has declared war on my country, he's a target.

I'll note here, that while GWB was the Commander in Chief, I was suspicious of claims made in the name of the Department of Defense, and/or the intelligence community. The man who casually authorized the use of torture, is NOT the man I want making decisions about who to target. The man who put political cronies into the Pentagon, and bullied professional military and intel people into coming to a particular conclusion and decision is not the man I want deciding who dies.

BUT - I do trust our professional military men, and the professionals in the intel community. They aren't going to waste time going after people with little to no military value.

Might they make mistakes? Yeah, possibly. Stuff happens. But, I trust them to do what's right, based on their knowledge.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[jwhitener]

Prior to 9/11, if I, as a US citizen, had walked into a US embassy somewhere in Africa and started shooting everyone, would I have been called a terrorist and taken to a secret CIA prison, or brought back to the US and charged as a criminal?

We both know I would have been charged as a criminal in the US, with a lawyer at my side. Post 9/11.. its hard to say.

The civil war was an officially declared war, with uniforms. This new "war on terror" makes no sense. You can't declare a war on an ideology. You can't have a perpetual war who's members are unknown and replenished with each generation raised on hating xyz about the US or its allies.

How will we know when we've "won" this war on terror? We can't. There is no end. And if there is no end, no victory condition, it can't be a war. And if it is not a war, attacks against us are of a criminal nature, not military nature. And criminals, by the USA's laws and morals, deserve their day in court.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Due process is fundamental to liberty and democracy. It does create barriers to effective prosecution of wars, which is why it is eased at those times. This war is never-ending and therefore should concern any US citizen. The argument that the gov't won't kill you b/c it's too expensive is not very comforting. Mistakes happen, even in critical and highly funded military operations. When the gov't makes a mistake there should be transparency and an opportunity for recourse, not just a smoking whole in the ground where the mistakee used to inhabit.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[10101001 10101001]

Yeah .. that's it. We'll just ask for ID cards proving citizenship before we shoot back at someone.

If they are on US soil, I would agree.

That's funny. I don't recall police ever doing an ID check before shooting back. No, if you're being shot at, you can claim some level of self-defense. There's nothing about a drone hit-list that's "shooting back".

A US citizen in a foreign country that is hanging around with enemy combatants that the US military thinks might be doing bad things is fair game. I don't care if they are a news reporter either. Those are the risks one takes in a war zone.

Funny. I thought the whole point of the ACLU FOIA request was to see if those US citizens were actually "hanging around with enemy combatants" or not. Or does being in a "war zone" mean the US military can summarily execute any and all civilians, US or otherwise, as it pleases? Btw, as much as it's a functional war zone, it's not actually a declared one. So, even if you recognize that the military does a lot more leeway in summary executions in a war, it's not very constitutionally clear whether the military's actions are legal.

War sucks ... it's even worse when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and hides like cowards among the civilian populations, using women and children to hide behind.

It also sucks when drones are used to simply kill women and children because someone in intelligence made a mistake. The sobering fact should be one reason wars should be ended as reasonably quickly as possible.

If someone shoots at American soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a US citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass.

Imagine if we had that same mentality about criminals firing on police in the US. You do realize, btw, that we're trying to root out an insurgency, right? Pressing into civilian population centers and mowing down innocent people to kill one insurgent will, in the long term, make the civilian population not trust us, rely on us, or be willing to support our actions. It is not different than if police in the US were to behave as you suggest. If the goal of the US were merely to kill all the "bad people" in the region, without regard to civilians, we should have wiped out the entire population a long time ago. And given that "bad people" are in the US region as well, it'd be high time for the US to execute a little bit of suicide on itself.

Clearly that's irrational and speaks more of grand, generalized anger. It's no way to succeed at the task at hand, however, which is to help create stability in the region. Gun ho executions aren't the answer.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[KDR_11k]

They get treated like the locals that are considered part of the enemy forces. I don't see a need to give them special treatment just because they were born outside of the country. Generally if you value not being blown up it's not a good idea to move into a country that has a large problem with armed forces that disguise themselves as civilians.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Falconhell]

Well said Sir, pity the truth gets modded troll.

But you cant expect any better from Slashdot.

IF I had mod points you would have got them.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

Like that of the Christians during the crusades?

Yes, exactly like the Christians during the crusades, except with roles reversed--religious fanatics imposing their will upon the infidels.

We can safely draw inferences as to whether or not this war will ever be won.

That's the problem. Some of us are not in this "war" to "win" anything. We simply would like to rid the world of bad guys.

Did you know that Mormons wear magical underwear?

I am an escaped mormon, so yes I know of the fancy underpants. The big difference is there are no underwear police patrolling the streets of Salt Lake City, kidnapping and stoning to death anyone not in compliance. BIG difference. Also, our government doesn't say you HAVE to be a Mormon and wear fancy underpants. As a matter of fact, I believe there is a little clause in there forbidding such activity. Again, that makes us the good guys and the beard police the bad guys.

You are right though. Sometimes the labels aren't appropriate and are subjective. My point is sometimes the labels are fitting and not subjective at all--unless you want to argue for the merits of beheading people because they don't believe in the official state religion.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[majid_aldo]

cowards? it's minimizing risk. in that case, i guess the guy controlling the drone is more of a coward since he isn't face to face with his enemy.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[MichaelSmith]

which is actually fine - and I think the ACLU would think so too - provided this decision making process doesn't consist of a haliburtan employee saying, "I don't think he belongs here ... *bang*"

Suicide bombers are actually more discriminating. They have been known to survey the target and abort the attack if a person they deem on their side (a Muslim) would be killed in the attack.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pnewhook]

So you are saying that the US are generally a bunch of bastards when it comes to armed conflict..

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[chihowa]

If US citizens are working as enemy combatants outside of the US, then they should be eligible as military targets as well.

Just to make it clear that the US military has no business going after US citizens on US soil. We have other agencies for that.

But what's the procedure for deciding what "working as enemy combatants" means. That's the crux of the issue here. Your statement seems to imply that any US citizen who is not actually in the US is a potential military target.

(And don't say he's in the field with an AK, because that's not what this case is about.)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pnewhook]

What a load of crap. Have you even read anything of what you are talking about or just got your information from Fox news?

The Geneva convention covers both civilians or fighters (under a variety of names).

Regardless, you do not have to wear a uniform to be covered by the convention. And you cannot be summarily shot. What a ridiculous crock of shit.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

Or I'm saying that war sucks and the idea that it can legislated and legally codified has no basis in history.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pnewhook]

You don't need to be uniformed to be covered under the Geneva convention. That notion is simply wrong.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[pnewhook]

Even war has rules. This has been known throughout history.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Naive my ass. I'm a 17-year Intelligence Professional in the Middle East/North Africa region.

Even worse then, incompetent.

However, I can think of two pretty clear "bad guy" scenarios, and they both start with "World War".

Innumerate too. "Two" is nowhere near the thousands of conflicts in contradiction to your claim.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

You have any case law to cite supporting this statement? My estimation is that a ex patriot traitor outside US jurisdiction firing on what were formerly his or her fellow citizens is not protected under US law.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Brett Buck]

Incorrect. I intentionally made a distinction between classified and FOUO. FOUO exists and is used almost entirely to get around the FOIA, as near as I can tell.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Brett Buck]

Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_but_unclassified"

FOUO is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym, used for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.

which is exactly what all versions of the various security guides I have access to also say.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Mod this guy up.

Firstly, the Geneva conventions cover civilians who take up arms to defend against an invader (e.g. the Norwegian rifle club which set up a roadblock and annihilated an entire German airborne unit in 1940),
Secondly the convention requires the capturing power to ask questions first and do their executing later - by implication the Geneva conventions do not authorise summary shooting of anyone, ever. You want to shoot someone who you've captured? You have to prove (if necessary to the satisfaction of his side's courts when you lose) that he's not entitled to the protection of the convention.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Thing 1]

Exactly. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's insurgent/terrorist."

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Wyatt Earp]

Rules yes. But not lawyers and laws about what is acceptable as a weapon and not.

For example the combat shotgun has been repeatedly criticized since the 1890s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun#History - usually by nations that didn't deploy them in combat (Ottoman Empire, Germany, United Kingdom).

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

if you have no citizenship, you can't commit treason.
Also, there's various international treaties covering stateless persons, and one of them bans countries from deliberately creating stateless persons by retracting their citizenship. Anyone know if the US is signed up to that one?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

The Geneva convention is not a reciprocal arrangement. Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed.
The term Enemy Combatant was thus invented so as to avoid calling people captured during the present conflict PoWs.

The present situation (fighting what is essentially a war against people who are not acting for a particular state) is completely new, and has been handled badly by inventing a new term so as to avoid calling people who are essentially PoWs PoWs.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

So close and yet so far...

s/smith/connor/

There we go.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[stewbacca]

That's right, when you have nothing persuasive to say, insult the other person. Great.

Two examples are better than the one you offered. I win.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because I've posted 50 times today...dammit.

FOUO "MAY" be exempted from FOIA. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the industry--just slap FOUO on it and nobody can have access to it...WRONG....first of all, you can't just slap FOUO on something, and second of all, the DoD regulation clearly states "may" be exempt from automatic public release. It all depends on other factors (such as the classification level, which FOUO isn't...it's a handling instruction, not a classification).

In any case, I've grown pretty tired of the arm-chair morons on slashdot over the years talking out of their assess about stuff they don't have access to and know nothing about, but have strong opinions (wrong, but strong) about, and this is one of those things.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's right, when you have nothing persuasive to say, insult the other person. Great.

You are the one who tried to pull the wholly unpersuasive, self-aggrandizing "I'm an intelligence expert."
You insulted me first with that bullshit.

Two examples are better than the one you offered. I win.

Lol.
Palestine
US invasion of Iraq
Iraq-Iran War
Kashmir
Both Chechen Wars
Korean War

I wasn't kidding about there being thousands of conflicts - the vast majority - where the lines are not so clear cut as you claimed. Your juvenile dismissal, as if such conflicts don't exist is beyond naive, its either willful or definitive proof of incompetence. But, incompetent or not, an "intelligence analyst" with such a simplistic black & white view of international relations is unequivocally a liability.

And while I let it pass the first time, your WWI reference is a whole lotta superficiality too. Hell, even WWII isn't so simple - while the end result of the nazis being enabled in their ethnic cleansing campaign isn't defensible, the stresses the country was put under by the rest of Europe made war of some sort inevitable. If not nazis, then it would have been some other group, probably one that was more sympathetic and less bellicose - but the fundamental motivation for war would have been the same since it originated as much inside Germany as it did outside.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Sabriel]

I'd prefer neither. When you think the only solution to people you disagree with is to kill them, something is terribly wrong.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[drkim]

Is Guantanimo, Cuba "our land"? No, which is what makes it so useful. People there aren't entitled to the Constitutional protections they would enjoy on "our land."
Is the territory of Puerto Rico "our land"? No
Is a diplomatic embassy compound in Israel "our land"? Actually, yes.
Is the space inside a humvee or diplomatic-flagged limousine "our land"? No, it's occupants may have diplomatic immunity, but the space itself does not.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Ozymandias_KoK]

That's an interesting thing to say when the vast majority of suicide bombings have had civilian casualties, and a large number of them had that as one of their very goals. You might be correct in a tiny number of cases, but even a cursory look at casualty figures disproves your statement as anything but a random exception.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Yvanhoe]

That's right. And I think the ACLU doesn't contest that. All it does is contest the same thing that is abnormal about this whole "war on terrorism" thing : there is no clear enemy. When your enemy is not a nation neither a military force, the operation should be a police operation. You arrest people and judge them. You don't just blow their houses and hope the neighbors will dodge the shrapnels.

If you want to kill an American, you can strip him of his nationality first and give him a fair hear in court if this is a mistake. This may be impractical from a military viewpoint, but democracy is impractical from a military viewpoint.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[MichaelSmith]

As I said: they target civilians but they are discriminating about the type of civilians they attack. I specifically remember an article about an Indonesian suicide bomber who aborted an attack on a cafe because a Muslim woman entered the premises.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Your rare example isn't really very meaningful in the real world. The weight of numbers is against it. It doesn't take much looking to see where the suicide bombers blow themselves up and what the typical civilian casualty's nominal religion is.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[SBrach]

Someone who disagrees with your opinion that you should continue breathing is shooting at you. What is the alternative solution to killing them? When someone is trying to kill you there are only two solutions, either you end up in a pine box or they do.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[SBrach]

How many teams of US diplomats do you want to see blown up before you come to the realization that these people don't want to talk. it is not like the taliban leaders have been begging for peace negotiations but we won't stop "storming" their lands. They have released countless videos screaming death to america and will not stop even if we ask them to really, really nicely.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

"Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed."

This is news to me...and likely any country that has signed it. Have you any source for this? I would love to see it. That'd be *very* interesting to me...

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Alarindris]

Can you link an article for your WWII anecdote? Never heard about that, would be interested to read more.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Sabriel]

You're shooting at me? With what? I'm on the other side of the planet, pressing a button that drops explosives on your head. Tough luck if it's because you were wearing the same colour hat as Mister Terrorist.

"The ACLU's lawsuit seeks, in addition to information about the legal basis for the drone program, information about how the program is overseen and data regarding the number of civilians and non-civilians killed in the strikes. Estimates of civilian casualties provided by anonymous government officials quoted in the press and by various non-governmental analysts differ dramatically, from the dozens to the hundreds, giving an incomplete and inconsistent picture of the human cost of the program."
  --- http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

see Application -> Common Article 2 -> 3rd bullet point

Drilling down to its references:
[pdf] page 50, paragraph 3.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

no. :-(
So I'll replace my example with this section 'Forces Involved'
The FIDF would count as a garden-variety militia, but the former members who turned up as well would be civilians spontaneously acting to defend their homes, and would have been entitled to be treated as PoWs, along with the other civilians who 'offered their services to the governor'

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[nickmalthus]

Great point. Drone attacks are plain and simple assassinations attacks. These attacks are occurring in allegedly sovereign countries with publicly declared pro-US governments in charge of their own police forces. The drone attacks are tantamount to a SWAT team saying they think they have a know serial killer's location and decide to level the building rather than raid it. Since it is perpetrated by our government only in a foreign land this somehow makes it acceptable. I am always perturbed by the American "patriots" that profess to be fighting for freedom and justice but only qualify it to apply to American citizens or a subset there of. Our country was founded on Enlightenment theory which addressed universal concepts such as Liberty, Justice, and Equality. If one truly believes in these principles it is impossible to rationalize that they are not natural rights and only apply to certain segments of society determined by some sort of government or community consensus.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

Thank you.

...and I quote (from your link):

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation."

(emphasis mine)

Keyword: Nation.
Definition: A politically organized body of people under a single government.

Take-away: Enemy Combatants, as per the definition given above, are not aligned with *any* nation and as such are not subject to or protected by the conventions.

Since no nation will claim them, what nation are we opposing? ;)

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I was arguing the point that you made elsewhere that the convention only protects soldiers of signatory nations, (so if our enemy hasn't signed it then we don't have to treat their PoWs properly).
Looks like I misread the point that you were making in this particular post.

But anyway, the situation where one nation (your definition) is in armed conflict (convention's definition) with a group of people who don't represent a nation is a new one. The closest parallel is probably that of a civil war, where one side is a government and the other isn't. In that situation the convention still has minimum requirements (i.e. people involved are still protected by the convention).

In any case, virtually anyone not protected by the 3rd convention is protected by the 4th convention, and both would require a proper investigation into which convention would apply (if any, though - as I've said - it would be unlikely that neither would apply). No-one gets to make a summary decision that a person is not protected by either convention.

'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention - the defintion provided is your definition, and has no force in law. The convention probably requires persons captured in this type of conflict to be treated as sort-of PoWs, but it's never been tested. The term 'Enemy Combatant' was invented deliberately to try and end-around the requirements of the convention by use of the logic which you outlined in your take-away point.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

First off... only about 10 are known to have fought for Germany.

Secondly...They were actively hostile on a battle field.It makes sense for a soldier to shoot at the people shooting at you.

Third...the only American who was Captured was tried for treason and sentenced to 25 years.

http://thepoormouth.blogspot.com/2006/06/americans-in-ss.html

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

Uhh... they still need to be tried and convicted. so I fail to see how assassination with out trial is supported by this statue.

Are you people even capable of reasoned thought?

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

note... it says "upon capture", not "its OK to blow up a building and kill innocent people to get the dirty bastard hiding among them."

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

When you are in a battle, you are right... there is no law. the rules of war say if someone is shooting at you, you get to shoot back at them.

Flying a drone to assassinate a US citizen who is helping in the planning of attacks is not a battle.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[modmans2ndcoming]

Shooting at US military is not what we are talking about here. we are talking about targeted assassinations.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[ps2os2]

Well I think the issue could be clouded with this:
What do you think of the weather?

Any answer is bang your dead.

Strictly speaking this is in line with Geneva Agreement. I certainly do not agree but I am sure the right would disagree. They are more of a shoot first ask questions later type.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Real1tyCzech]

"'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention" The term is actually quite well defined...by others than myself, though usually distinguishing between 'lawful' and 'unlawful'. In the posts above, I have been using the 'unlawful' definition. Relevant links: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html The 4th Geneva Convention, as far as I know, applied further protections to civilians, but not to military forces that are not 'lawful' enemy combatants. Of course, it is now confused even more since the public outcry regarding treatment of Taliban prisoners and such (and technically didn't fall under any "strict" definition as the definitions stupidly specified "uniformed" military...as though there would never be any other kind...), and the USSC's subsequent caving on the issue which served only to further muddy an already vague classification.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[Fujisawa Sensei]

If you are in a combat zone and working with the enemy, you have the right to be a target.

Re:Someone tagged this FOIA

[HornWumpus]

You do need to be uniformed or a non-combatant.

Combatants without uniforms are not covered by the Geneva conventions.

Re:What more needs to be said

[Wyatt Earp]

That video was made by the United States government?

Targeted killing isnt ok??

[Rockoon]

Well then, lets have some untargeted killing then. Thats much better for everyone.

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[Errol backfiring]

Which is what these devices do, if I follow the news from the past few years. These missiles just explode, and anyone near enough gets killed or injured also. This is not any different from a car bomb, which that same government would most probably call terrorism. When it is a missile instead of a car, it is obviously terrorism also, but I bet that the government won't call it that.

For the victims, it is just a bomb like any other. Is it really that difficult that you fight a war on on terrorism with intelligence, and a war on terra with military force?

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[Hunter0000]

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;" [From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)] Emphasis mine..

Yes, true, drone attacks do cause collateral damage, but perhaps we should go back to carpet bombing because they are not prefect? (Not that I don't tend to agree on your last point)

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[dwillden]

Actually they like using thermobaric missiles, which are designed to penetrate into a building before detonating. Anyone in the room, building or compound is toast(literally) but surrounding areas are at little risk.

This as opposed to the historic method of bombing, drop hundreds or thousands of dumb bombs across a large swath of terrain killing everyone anywhere near the targeted area, assuming the bombardier actually manages to hit the target.

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[shutdown -p now]

It's not any different from a missile launched from a piloted plane, a bomb dropped from the same, or an artillery shell.

In short, the whole lawsuit is idiotic. They might have just as well sued the U.S. government for murder in course of warfare.

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[ArcherB]

Which is what these devices do, if I follow the news from the past few years. These missiles just explode, and anyone near enough gets killed or injured also. This is not any different from a car bomb, which that same government would most probably call terrorism. When it is a missile instead of a car, it is obviously terrorism also, but I bet that the government won't call it that.

WRONG!

Sure, they are both bombs, but being a bomb does not make it a tool of terrorism. We use explosives all the time for all kinds of things. Is blasting rock to build a tunnel terrorism? Of course not. Terrorists also use pencils. Does that mean that pencils should be banned because they are the tools of terrorists?

By definition, terrorism is meant to cause "terror" among the population. This is why an attack that kills tens of civilians can just as powerful as one that kills hundreds or thousands. Remember the "Beltway Sniper"? How about the Anthrax scares? Remember when Tylenol was poisoned with cyanide? These were all successful terrorist attacks, even though the actual casualty count was low.

Causing terror is only half of what makes an act terrorism. All militaries use tactics to confuse and terrorize their enemy. It is an accepted and legal tactic of war. The second half of what makes a terrorist's act "terrorism" is the target. A terrorist has no interest in killing, maiming or even terrorizing military targets. (and no, the guy that shot up Ft. Hood was not a traditional terrorist, except for the fact that his targets were completely unarmed). The goal of a terrorist is to create terror among civilians. THAT is their target. That is what makes us different from them. We try our hardest to PROTECT the civilian population and only take out the military targets. Terrorists attack the civilians and AVOID the military targets. And THAT is why you are wrong. That is where your intellect fails. I sincerely hope that it is just your political ideology that has clouded your judgement and not raw stupidity. On second thought, I don't know which is worse. Raw stupidity can be dealt with. History has shown that ideologically induced stupidity is very dangerous.

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[DaTroof]

How did this get modded insightful? It completely misses the point.

Obviously, the ACLU is not arguing that untargeted killing is preferable. They want to know, among other things, what rules exist for selecting targets and whether the program complies with international law.

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[stewbacca]

You are very wrong. The missiles from these drones can be guided to a 1x1 meter patch anywhere on the globe. It isn't indiscriminate killing unless you don't actually know what it is you are flying the missile into (which happens, I assume).

Re:Targeted killing isnt ok??

[Falconhell]

"We try our hardest to PROTECT the civilian population and only take out the military targets"

Tell that to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"We try our hardest to PROTECT the civilian population"

Going by the number of civilians killed in such attacks, thats not going well at all.

Spouting fallaciouis rubbish like you just wrote gives you no justification to accuse anyone of
stupidity or a false ideology.

Fishing expedition

[Wyatt Earp]

The DoD won't give up an operational details that they've not already given to the press.

Domestic vs. Foreign

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Jer]

From the summary:

'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.'

That's part of the reason why the ACLU would be involved.

Another part is that they're a watchdog group. When the government is keeping secrets from its citizens, watchdog groups make noise. That's what they do. I'm glad for it - too much gets shoved under the label of "national security" and the press is useless if you can't provide them a decent "some say ... while others claim ..." narrative to wrap facts in.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[XxtraLarGe]

'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.'

Read the summary but somehow totally missed this part. Thanks for the polite response. :-)

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Not that I completely agree with them, but I thought the articles said that they thought we were targeting US citizens. My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country. I'd like to hope the US isn't just waiting for me to step into mexico to snipe me.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I know reading TFA is verboten, but could you at least read the summary?

The ACLU further claims that 'Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones.'

So, they're asking about what is being done TO American civilians. And your country's pressed its stance of "Our citizens are our citizens no matter where they go, and are still subject to our law and no other" often enough that just because it's being done on foreign soil doesn't exempt them now.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Surely there's enough abuse of our civil liberties domestically to keep the ACLU busy for generations. Leave stuff like this to the human rights orgs.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Shakrai]

My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.

The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.

I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[nedlohs]

"""
Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones
"""

It's in the damn summary, for fuck sake.

Now that mightn't be the case, but it's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[quantumplacet]

Despite the standard inaccurate Slashdot headline, they're not actually suing over the legality of targeted killing by drones, they're suing over the disclosure of information. Government transparency is a big part of what the ACLU is all about, and they're suing to get the government to hand over the documents. If impropriety is found once/if the documents are released, most likely a different group would actually sue over the abuses, since they are, as you say, not a civil liberties issue.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[IndustrialComplex]

The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.

And this has been proven in a court of law? Or is based on the hunch of some intelligence analyst who is contracted through a corporation to provide support to the DoD?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Maxo-Texas]

Very nice polite response!

Clap clap clap!

One Happy Positive Karma thought headed your way.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Nadaka]

This is the only thing I disagree with the ACLU on, the second amendment is extremely important. Their abject failure to defend it does not in any way discredit the rest of the good that they do.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Mirlas]

I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?

I don't know. I'd be interested in knowing what the laws are for the crime of treason and how it is to be handled. What is the due process?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them. Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period. As for "the criminals have them." No, they don't. Anyone gets caught with a gun, it's to jail with them, end of story.

And for the Americans who say "But we need guns to defend ourselves against the government!" Riiight. Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens. First of all, I think that's called "treason". Second... well someone did a test run of that for us, it was called "Wako, TX".

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[couchslug]

US citizens assisting the enemy on the field of battle (which has been widened by the choice of AQ, Taliban, and other Muslim advocacy groups to wage unconventional war) were always fair military game. If, when Jane Fonda posed with the North Vietnamese AAA battery, she had been taken out by an F-4 Wild Weasel it would not have been illegal even though she wasn't firing the weapon she posed with.

Assisting combat or logistics ops makes anyone doing that a legit target.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[radtea]

I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason.

Treason is a crime. Crimes are dealt with by arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing.

Responding to purported treason by assassination is a cowardly, banana republic approach.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to go to court to kill someone who is actively engaged in warfare against the United States. It doesn't matter whether they are a citizen or not.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We deploy soldiers, not attorneys. Basic training is six weeks, not three years of law school. Soldiers don't have time to do the type of investigation you are demanding. They would be killed before they even got started.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason.

And as a US citizen, you are entitled to a fair trial.

How do we know that every person on this automated hit-list is actually guilty if we don't weigh the evidence in a trial?

The government's ability to bypass due process in the delivering of a death-sentence that will be executed by drones (that never object on moral or legal grounds) is far too much power. It must be checked and balanced.

I am glad the ACLU is ensuring that such a check is in place.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[shutdown -p now]

So, every time an American soldier is to shoot a hostile guy on a battlefield, he is first to inquire whether the latter has U.S. citizenship?

I fail to see how drones bring anything new whatsoever to the picture. American citizens who are been fighting for Taliban have been killed by bullets and artillery fired by U.S. personnel, and by bombs and missiles from piloted U.S. planes, long before drones were first used in Afghanistan. It's how this whole "war" thing works, and how it always did.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting to hear what is it called when you break your oath of office, by passing unconstitutional garbage (over the past decade), and encouraging fraudulent acts with our monetary system over four decades to a point now where the whole thing is screwed? Would that be traitor? Or treason? There's seems to be a double standard for taking the oath. The GI get's one oath, and held to it, but the corruption in high offices, NSA, CIA, DOD and pentagon and such other agencies have their own special oath which apparently means nothing at all when ever they feel like it.

If you ask me, We The People, would be wise to dig back through the records of the last 10 years, and insist all this damage to our constitution be rolled back. Look I ain't saying America shouldn't spy, I get it I am a veteran, but this whole thing is so far out of control now, it's a fucking witch hunt with corporate tv normal people who question the government are criminals! Such witch hunts replaces the bold American spirit with fear, and chilling effects in speech. This is fucking nonsense.

The time for the rationalization of why and how we got here is over folks, it's time to face up to all these abusive powers, get them rolled back and expose and indict the oath breakers behind it. I mean there really isn't any other choice. These fuckers are going to BREAK our government financially soon, then what? Roll out the military on us when the streets fill up with pissed off Americans who have had their $100,000 retirement reduced overnight to $10,000? Are people so stupid they don't know this is exactly what happened in Iceland overnight!

Come on man, pick a better fight. There's plenty here. But I can tell you this, it will be a lot less painful to deal with these problems sooner, than later. But to be honest with you, I don't think we can save America if they plan to allow the dollar to devalue while the bond market blows up and the military pours into the streets. If we have to rebuild from that point, we will have to rebuild the whole thing from the bottom up. Flush out any of that bullshit continuity of government crap, which really doesn't fucking matter anymore when it isn't a representative government left anyway.

Either way if you agree or disagree, you better fucking hope this kind of endgame doesn't play out. That's straight up bud.

In my opinion America needs to drawback it's shit, and stop agreeing to all these fucking global treaty / framwork ponzi schemes, fix what's here starting with our monetary system right now, and put a stop to either all these global fees or alll our debt. I am watching my country go to SHIT! come on fuck

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Wyatt Earp]

Its a US Constitutional Amendment and US Federal Law to have the right to own and bear arms.

The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0

"The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And it was Waco TX, and they weren't going to overthrow the Government, they were just nut jobs with a lot of guns that the Clinton White House and DoJ wanted to make an example out of.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

My rights as a citizen of the US shouldn't expire with respect to the US government if I leave the country.

The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.

Wow. Those sound like questions of fact and questions of law. If only we had some impartial system to evaluate those...

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more curious about how many civilians died because they looked a little like someone on the target list, I mean it's not like on TV where they can zoom 100x and see the pores on their face. About the other thing, I'm not American, so if you want to shoot your countrymen well that's your problem.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[joebagodonuts]

I'd be interested on how often mistakes are made.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[dwillden]

Those citizens have for one reason or another chosen to associate themselves with our sworn enemies(the enemies have done the swearing not us). They are overseas in a war zone, working and living in close proximity to legitimate targets.

You do retain some of your constitutional rights overseas but not all of them. And in fact there is no requirement of the US intel community to verify the citizenship of an individual overseas. Stateside intel collectors must assume, until proven otherwise, that any individual is a US Person. Overseas the assumption goes the other way. And if you join the armed forces of another nation or power you surrender your Citizenship. These individuals are working with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, their constitutional rights as a citizen are forfeit.

No the ACLU does not have any grounds to be involved other than to make the press. You work or hang out with known terrorists, guess what, you stand the chance of catching a missile.

We are at war with a movement that has sworn to see us our faith (if we aren't the same extreme form of Islam as they are) and our form of government wiped from the earth. War is hell but it is a war, and we will execute that war using the best tools we have at our disposal.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Wyatt Earp]

Should US citizens who traveled back to Germany in the 1930s, who then joined the German military and fought against the US in the European and Mediterranean Theatre of Operations not been shoot at or bombed?

Should the FBI and US Military Police, maybe the US Marshall's Service, have run around with a warrant trying to arrest them?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[dwillden]

If you leave the country, no.

However; if you join another nations military or align yourselves with terrorists seeking to destroy our country, yes you actually do lose them. Your citizenship is forfeit if you do those things.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[bishiraver]

Soldiers request Predator backup against military targets.

This is talking about the targeted execution of individuals via predator drones. In that situation, they're called in by intelligence reports and flown to the designated target area whereupon they eliminate the target.

How do we know these intelligence reports are correct?

How do we know the intelligence report generated by an intelligence subcontractor wasn't fabricated?

How do we know they weren't based on misinformation?

For the summary execution of a US citizen, that's a lot of what ifs that should be left in a court of law, not some intelligence subcontractor's laptop.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[dwillden]

In the case of Adam Gadahn who has been indicted for treason. It's based on his numerous videos, letters and public statements on behalf of Al Qaeda. True he hasn't been convicted in a court of Law yet, but that's only because we wish him to be present at his trial. The evidence is more than enough to convict with ease. And that's with just the unclassified evidence.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

i am glad you don't live here anymore. the less of people like you in this country the better

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

So, every time an American soldier is to shoot a hostile guy on a battlefield, he is first to inquire whether the latter has U.S. citizenship?

There is a big difference between killing enemy soldiers in combat, American or not, and to keep a list of American citizens that are actively pursued for extermination using drones.

It's a very valid issue to raise and US will be better for it to have this issue argued in a court room.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Trials for treason is the correct course of action if the accused is in a country where the US has the jurisdiction to arrest them.
Elsewhere other rules apply.
In a battlefield situation that doesn't necessarily apply.

So it matters where the person is and what they're doing.
If they're walking around freely in a military compound for a group actively opposing the US through violence, I believe that pretty squarely puts them outside US jurisdiction and actively working with a faction against the US. I'm surely not stepping in there to arrest them.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[quizzicus]

As a member, I'm okay with my organization of half a million spending more time on all the other amendments when there's an organization of 4 million (the NRA) that focuses on the second amendment alone.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[AndersOSU]

The second amendment is important. So are laws against cruelty to animals. Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.

The ACLU is a private advocacy group, the get to decide what they advocate for - and they can't do everything.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[lawpoop]

I'm of a practical mindset. The NRA can look out for the second amendment. The ALCU looks out for the other 26. Rational people can disagree.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[corbettw]

And this has been proven in a court of law?

It doesn't have to be. They're on the battlefield, shooting at American and allied soldiers. That makes them valid targets for any weapon system our military has, including unmanned drones.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Capt_Morgan]

Oh please... your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absurd. It would mean that anyone should be able to own a tank or a nuclear missile. Clearly the term "militia" was inserted for a reason

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[ColdWetDog]

A+++++++

Would mod up again (if I ever got mod points that is).

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[ReverendJ1]

There was another test run called the Revolutionary War...

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[gknoy]

I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.

If records are kept secret, can you be sure that this is not being planned against american citizens, on domestic soil? If the government says, "Sure we assassinate people, but it's only bad guys", do you believe them out of hand, or do you want some proof? Recall that Hoover and others very much targeted Americans in our nation.

This is not meant as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy of "omg they're killin' us!". Rather, it's meant to ensure that it's not being done. The complaint linked is because the government has specifically not done anything with the FOIA request. Normally, they must be processed (whether the request is denied or approved) within twenty days. Sixty had passed with no response when the ACLU made their complaint. This is (more immediately) about ensuring that the government is complying with the FOIA than it is about the drones themselves.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[XxtraLarGe]

Clearly the term "militia" was inserted for a reason

You're correct. The term "militia" refers to all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. So basically when that was written, it meant every free male over the age of 16, I believe.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure walking up to an enemy combatant on a battlefield and saying "You have the right to remain silent" works really well. Cops can kill people who

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortuntely the vast majority of political power in the US is held by the super rich and large corporations. They'll keep bankrupting the country, taxing the middle class, and send absurdly large amounts of federal money to the military-intelligence-industrial-complex. What happens to a blue-collar factory worker in Detroit who looses his job and defaults on his mortgage a few months later? He looses his house and ends up in bankruptcy court. What happens to a financial powerhouse who looses hundreds of billions of dollars in ridiculously stupid investments? You get all the money back from the federal government, just ask Bank of America or Citi.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[yacc143]

Well, they don't have to verify it. But if they target you individually, they already know who you are. And if they put you on a death list, they better know something more than your name, birthday and nationality.

OTOH, as you are happy with this, let's hope that you never piss off somebody who decides if you are allowed to continue to live.

The US government has already by far to many privileges (e.g. they can get basically any data about you, they can lock you up and throw away the key, it's enough that some DHS flunky softly mentions terrorism, and so on).

Now, the US government has given itself the right to determinate who is allowed to continue to live.

Hint, some years ago, a certain Mr. Hussein, Saddam, got hung for deciding which of his citizens are allowed to live.

Might does not make it right, nor is it right because it's your side.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[SubstormGuy]

I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.

It is easy to understand, once you realize that they are on the other side.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

And what has happened to the level of knife crime in this gun-free nirvana?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then I guess we can safely assume YOU are willing to walk around Pakistan, wrestle suspects to the ground and handcuff them?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[stewbacca]

So a cop responding to gun fire and fires back killing the suspect shooting at him is "assassination" and "cowardly"?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[stewbacca]

The FBI is a domestic agency. They can't enforce US warrants or US law against citizens abroad.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[SubstormGuy]

Treason is a crime. Crimes are dealt with by arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing.

Responding to purported treason by assassination is a cowardly, banana republic approach.

All those poor Confederate soldiers in Picket's Charge. They should have been arrested, not assassinated by Federal marksmen with unfairly-accurate rifles.

It is a statistical certainty (p 10e-1111111) that anti-Nazi German soldiers and civilians were killed by US forces during WW2.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[dwillden]

And if I ever decide to forswear my citizenship and associate and work with a terrorist group at war with our country, I'll do so with the knowledge that I will probably end up being targeted for my actions.

As I have no intention of doing so. Even if I disagree with some of our policies, I'll fight them through legal means, not go overseas and join a foreign force fighting our country.

The process of adding a NON-US target to the target lists, takes a lengthy and usually time consuming process. For a citizen it gets that much longer. We are not targeting random US citizens willy nilly. These are people actively engaged against us, in clear well documented ways (usually with video made by the persons targeted expressing their hatred and intentions against the country.)

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Shakrai]

This rationalization doesn't hold water. It's not that they've decided to defer to the NRA on defending the 2nd amendment. They are openly hostile to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. That's not compatible with an organization that's supposed to defend civil liberties.

Don't take my word for it though. My previous link was their own webpage.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[MiniMike]

if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason.

And as a US citizen, you are entitled to a fair trial.

If they wanted a fair trial, they should have surrendered to the US troops instead of trying to kill them. Should we risk lives again to try and arrest an enemy combatant in a war zone? If they surrender, or leave the war zone and can be captured, then they should be given a fair trial. Personally, I would even prefer that as we might get valuable info. Otherwise I would view it as they have forfeited their rights.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Limburgher]

And again, your evidence that these citizens hav done this is. . .

And what exactly is "our" faith, just out of curiosity?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Shakrai]

I'm of a practical mindset. The NRA can look out for the second amendment. The ALCU looks out for the other 26. Rational people can disagree.

I don't accept this rationalization. The ACLU is openly hostile towards the 2nd amendment. It's not that they've just decided that the NRA is better equipped to defend it. They come right out on their own webpage and claim that it doesn't defend an individual right. They would be foaming at the mouth if anybody tried to come up with that reading of any other civil liberty but do the same with regards to the 2nd amendment?

That makes them hypocrites, plain and simple. They will never see a dime of my money for this reason.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Wyatt Earp]

Really? Then why does the FBI deploy overseas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fbi

"More than 50 international offices called "legal attachés" are in U.S. embassies worldwide."

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/counterterrorism.htm

"The FBI quickly deployed over 100 Agents from the Counterterrorism Division, the Laboratory, and various field offices to Aden."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/28/nation/na-fbi28

Sure, they won't arrest overseas, they'll get a foreign government to take them into custody and then hand them over, but it remains that the FBI runs around the world arresting folks.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[shutdown -p now]

That still doesn't add up. The way I'd expect it to normally go is that intel says, "oh, we have this guy X who's on the list of prominent enemy military commanders according to our info", and then an order gets dispatched to UAV operators. By your logic, if they send a squad of Marines instead, who kill guy X in a firefight, then it's fine and dandy, because that would be "killing enemy soldier in combat". But UAV is a no-no?

Oh, and what if said squad shells the enemy (e.g. using mortars) before engaging directly? Or what if they call an air strike? Still okay, because it's "in combat"?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[metlin]

The people who are being targeted have done a little bit more than leave the country. They've left the country and joined up with enemies of the country who are actively engaged in the process of trying it do it harm.

I'm sorry but if you leave the US, travel to a foreign battlefield and willingly enlist in the service of those who are fighting our country you've committed treason. Why should you be treated any differently than the foreign combatants whom are trying to do us harm?

You could simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What if you're a US citizen in an active war zone trying to help people, as a doctor or a nurse? Or what if you're just a part of a watchdog group monitoring the situation?

That's the pesky thing about law - due process. Just because you're some place appearing to do something doesn't mean much -- it is up to the other side to prove that you're guilty of whatever you're accused of.

I think that's ACLU's point -- provide evidence, and treat the miscreants as US citizens with due judicial process before summarily executing them just because.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[dwillden]

Our faith, is anything even slightly different from the Radical Islamic views of Al Qaeda. Even Moderate Islam can and will fall under that label. And yes Atheism falls under the umbrella as well.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[guspasho]

Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship, unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizen". The constitution usually uses a passive tense, and the rights enumerated are in the form "the government shall not", not "citizens have the right of".

Most specifically relevant here:

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

These assassinations off the battlefield, regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders, is clearly unconstitutional.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Ma8thew]

You can disagree with them, but to call them hypocrites is wrong. They take a different interpretation of the constitution from you. Given their interpretation their policy is completely consistent.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[clarkkent09]

We are talking about a war zone here. Are you seriously asking the US military to arrest every enemy soldier who is firing on them, find out if they are a US citizen, and then put them on trial?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[bmajik]

The second amendment is important. So are laws against cruelty to animals

Actually, the second amendment is the _most_ important because its the teeth in all of the rest of them. It is an _individual_ right, one which the ACLU _does not support_. I am not an ACLU hater, but I do wish they were a bit more... rationally grounded in their assessment of what our inalienable rights are. The constitution said it was one list. The ACLU uses a different list with some overlap.

Now, on to the issue of laws against animal cruelty: those are not only unimportant, they should be repealed.

See, animals don't have intrinsic rights, and even if they do, our constitution doesn't say so, and doesn't say that it was formed to protect those rights.

The entire breadth and scope of our government's rationale is the proection if the intrinsic rights of individuals, even against the desire of their neighbors to harm them via the power of majority.

Animals don't figure into this at all. Any law concerning animals needs to focus on property rights and food / safety issues. As long as it's your animal and your back yard and you're not spreading a pathogen into the local ecosystem, you should be able to electrocute your dogs balls or whatever other disgusting thing you want to do. Any laws to the contrary are ungrounded in objective reality. Our animal cruelty laws are nothing more than the result of most americans liking some animals more than others. Want to torture a worm? Nobody is going to stop you, but nobody can explain why the current laws SHOULD protect dogs but SHOULDN'T protect some of the other animals that currently aren't protected.

I love being the guy on slashdot that argues that torturing your own pets should be legal. It's not because i dislike animals, it's because all laws need to derive from self-consistent axioms, and nobody has articulated what those are as relates to protecting animals.

I know, asking for consistency in law and principles is pissing in the wind :)

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[lawpoop]

Rational people disagree about the meaning of the 4th amendment. This has been debated for like the past 100 years. The ACLU has a view on gun rights that I don't agree with, and a lot of other people don't. That doesn't make them a hypocrite because they disagree with me. Let me ask this: have the ACLU actively fought against individual rights? Or have they just avoided supporting individual rights cases? ( That's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know ).

Everybody is a hypocrite on something. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's plenty of good that the ACLU is doing, and if they don't do it, there's not much of anybody else doing it. Don't cut your nose to spite your face, I say. Like I said, we have the NRA supporting individual gun rights, but who is supporting the first and fourth amendment ( amongst others )? The ACLU.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason is where you support an enemy from within your own border or area of operation, and you remain a citizen. When you leave and join the enemy this is defection (which is also treasonous), which having committed you have given up prior citizenship for the citizenship of the enemy you are now supporting.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Duradin]

If the cop guns the suspect down five days later while the suspect is sleeping, yes.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Duradin]

Are you just being obtuse or can't you comprehend that there is a difference between uniformed soldiers of a recognized state actor directly participating in active battle against other uniformed soldiers of another recognized state actor under a formal declaration of war and using drones, with no declared war, against non-state actors without the consent of the targeted country, to kill specific people?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason is a crime. Crimes are dealt with by arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing.

Kind of difficult to do when they're part of a hostile force outside the jurisdiction of our legal system.

Or do you want to make the claim the our legal system holds sway anywhere in the world. If you do, be prepared to defend yourself from charges of Imperialism.

And they're deep inside hostile territory.
Would you have us airdrop in some police and lawyers to make the arrest? How would you expect to get any of them back out, alive?

War and law enforcement are two different things, you can't fight a war like it is law enforcement and you certainly shouldn't enforce laws like it's a war, despite metaphors to the contrary. When someone has joined up with organizations that are at war with you, you can't make distinctions between your enemies unless you happen to capture them in a military action. And note, being a combatant is not automatically a crime.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Rakishi]

So when exactly isn't in cowardly and assassination? Please provide a decent concrete guideline since otherwise I'm sure you'll try to wiggle out of any argument to the contrary.

Like, are you saying if a police sniper shoots a kidnapper who poses no threat to the cop then it cowardly and assassination?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[517714]

I don't like the government having too much power, but I'm not sure I understand why the ACLU is getting involved in this if it is not being done domestically against American citizens. What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.

We are not at war -war has never been declared. Under what doctrine do you think the US should be waging an undeclared war? Consider the likelyhood that the drone is remotely piloted by a civilian contractor operating in the US. Would his action not fall under premeditated murder rather than an act of war?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Tacvek]

Actually, the law is quite clear that one cannot lose citizenship without intending to do so. So if one joins a terrorist organization, or a foreign military without the intent to relinquish citizenship, they remain US Citizens.

However, joining any group hostile to the United States does create a rebuttable presumption of the intention to relinquish citizenship.

Here is an abridgment of 8 USC 1481 (emphasis mine)

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

[A list of actions including (among others) becoming a national of another country, treason, becoming a soldier in a hostile military, or a commissioned officer in any foreign military.]

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

[End of section]

If you read the whole thing[1] you will see that loss of citizenship for treason only occurs

Now, the law is more concerned with whether the actions are considered voluntary, as some of these acts, especially the ones related to treason are very strongly presumed to always be done with the intention of relinquishing citizenship. However, others such as becoming a national of another country carry only limited presumption of intent to relinquish citizenship. For example, one is allowed to become a national of another country while retaining US citizenship, the courts have been very clear about that.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481----000-.html#a

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Wyatt Earp]

No, I understand it perfectly well.

1. We don't know that the governments of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen have not given consent. Since Afghanistan and Iraq are puppets of the US at this juncture, like the Republic of Vietnam was in 1968, I think its safe to assume they've given consent. Pakistan's government obviously has to have given consent or they would have just shot the damned UAVs down.

2. "Non-state actors" is our definition of the people who are eating Hellfires, they would say that they are fighters for the World Islamic Front for Combat Against the Jews and Crusaders and that they declared war in 1998.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

As many others have asked:

A) How do we know they have aligned themselves with terrorists?
B) What law says that you lose your citizenship if you do?

And of course as everyone else also pointed out: there is a huge difference between individually targeting a specific individual as a target vs more traditional warfare (we're an army shooting at the other guy's army).

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[AlexBirch]

And this has been proven in a court of law? Or is based on the hunch of some intelligence analyst who is contracted through a corporation to provide support to the DoD?

No this is done based on the information provided by Curveball, Knuckball and Slider. They have to be straight shooters, no?

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[stewbacca]

Sorry, meant to say the FBI doesn't go around arresting NON-US citizens abroad...they leave that stuff up to the CIA. The FBI doesn't deal with non-citizens overseas, they merely handle criminal/security issues for US Persons overseas on US installations. FBI agents "deployed" to Aden in response to issues affecting the security of "US Persons" (which include US facilities) stationed overseas. A crime committed by a US soldier on a base in Germany or Japan is FBI business, because it is US persons involved on US facilities. Depending on Status of Forces Agreements, the FBI may cooperate with host nations as well, such as Scotland Yard, if a soldier gets drunk off-base in London and commits a crime.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Duradin]

If the suspect poses an immediate threat to someone such that intervention of immediate lethal force is the is the only likely and foreseeable way to resolve the situation so that less harm comes to the officer or the third party then it is not assassination nor cowardly.

Now, can you understand the difference between battle and assassination? Self defense and assassination? Assassination involves killing people but not all killings are assassinations.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[AndersOSU]

The constitution said it was one list.

No it didn't. The constitution was never intended to be a complete enumeration of our rights. And while there is overlap, the terms constitutional rights, civil liberties, and human rights are not completely interchangeable.

I have a constitutional, but not a human right to not have soldiers quartered in my house. I have a civil, but not a constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on my race in the housing sector. I have a human right, but not a civil or constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.

The ACLU reads the second amendment differently from you. They're a private organization, so they're allowed to. Neither is the second amendment the "most important," this countries fetishization violence notwithstanding ... "the pen is mightier than the sword," and all that. Were I to rank the amendments in terms of importance, I'd start with the fourteenth (due process), then the fifteenth and the nineteenth (voting rights), and then the first. Hell, even someone who goes on about soap boxes, voting boxes, and ammo boxes relegates the second amendment rights to third.

If you are guaranteed due process you don't need your guns to protect you from the government, because because you can't be hauled away for being subversive - even if you're in a minority. If you can vote you don't need guns to protect you from the government because you are them. If you can speak you can move your fellow citizens to a just cause.

Now as to animal rights, and the breadth and scope of our government's purview... first, animal rights are regulated at the state and local level, to whom the constitution delegates broad authority. Essentially, a local government can do whatever they want, provided the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it. If you think they should be repealed feel free to lobby your state representative or run on the Michael Vick ticket. Second, the constitution doesn't enshrine my right not to be hurt on the job, or access to clean water and air, but the federal government does. These are (civil) rights that the constitution allows, but does not require, the federal government the right to grant.

Want a consistent axiom for animal welfare? Humans have the right to utilize animals for their own benefit, including food, medical research, etc. Humans do not have the right to deliberately and needlessly torment an animal. The law is capable of differentiating between a worm and a cat, just as it is capable of applying different punishments for abusing adults and children.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[stewbacca]

If the suspect is a known international terrorist who is plotting to kill thousands of infidels, then I'd say "immediate lethal force" is the "only likely and forseeable way to resolve the situation", yes.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should change their acronym to AIACLU - Americans in America Civil Liberties Union.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[shutdown -p now]

Sorry, I have to agree with them on this one, and I used to be a big donor to them. Countries, like the one I live in now, where people can't own guns are safer, period.

What does this even have to do with "safer"?

You know what is the safest kind of society? A totalitarian one where every step of every citizen is tracked and monitored, and everyone who's so much as indicating the desire to stir up trouble is "disappeared" immediately. That is a very safe arrangement for 99% of the citizens - they have absolutely nothing to fear!

So why don't we do it, then?

You can't evaluate practicality of basic rights from a purely utilitarian approach, unless you also want to discard the rights to free speech, association etc. And the right to self defense is a basic right.

But you know what? It still doesn't matter, because whether you like it or not, it's still in the Constitution, and is thus a right Americans should enjoy today.

Anyone who starts collecting guns with the stated intention to be prepared to fight the government, just wait and see what happens. First of all, I think that's called "treason".

No, not really:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Historically, an armed uprising was considered "levying War", but conspiracy to one was not (because the Constitutional definition doesn't include that, and it sets strict bounds on what can be considered treason). So stockpiling weapons, even if you explicitly state goal as "to facilitate overthrowing of some hypothetical future oppressive U.S. government" is not treason.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Rich0]

And this has been proven in a court of law?

Simple - just make a website that you post names on to the effect of "If you see your name on this website, it is because you're indicted for serious crimes against US national security, so you better turn yourself in before we find you."

Then the accused can simply present themselves for arrest and I'm sure nobody will object to their receiving a trial.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Point everyone is forgetting....this is happening on foriegn soil in a war zone. The MP's cannot just waltz up to an emcampment, check for passports and tote off the so called 'US Citizens'. These people do not play by the 'rules'. Now, this action is going to make anyone with a bead on an enemy have second thoughts about pulling the trigger (gun, canon or drone). Most of you make it sound like a sporting event with referees. No dice all! And when you are being shot at by several of these dear souls, who you shoot to stop them shooting at you is irrelevant at that moment but many like to armchair quaterback it to death later.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it consent when the targeted country's existing government is overthrough in the process of a military invasion and the new government consists of politicians hand-picked by the invading country? Just asking, because if that's consent then the Nazis were completely in their rights when they started killing Jews in Poland, right? After all, the Nazi leadership warned everyone that the Jews were dangerous, that the Jews were destroying the economies and planning to take over the governments of several Axis countries. The Nazi's installed a friendly government in Poland that agreed with Nazi policies. Those Jews who resisted were terrorists, right? Espcially the hundreds of thousands who died in the ghettos of Warsaw. I know its a stretch, but you might learn a lot if you looked at complex problems from points of view other than what your government and corporate media feed you.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[kismet666]

All the case you cite proves is that the US government will only take cases to court when they have overwhelming evidence. If they don't they might go through a military tribunal, but if they don't even have enough evidence for that they'll just detain the accused, or assassinate him.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[publiclurker]

You already have the NRA defending your right to compensate for your general cowardice and lack of manhood. The ACLU has other fish to fry.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

"And it was Waco TX, and they weren't going to overthrow the Government, they were just nut jobs with a lot of guns that the Clinton White House and DoJ wanted to make an example out of."

I dont ususally bother to respond to the drivel posted by Wyatt, but Waco was a good thing. Dead US gun nuts dont bother me at all, one less violence crazed tool. Plain garbage disposal.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, they still expect you to pay your taxes even if you aren't in the country as long as you maintain citizenship.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[jc42]

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

It seems pretty clear that to many people here, a non-citizen isn't a "person". OTOH, in the US at least, a registered corporation is a "person". So corporations should be protected but visiting tourists shouldn't.

At least that's the idea that many are expressing here.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[Anonymous Coward]

The rabbit hole goes far deeper. These are just practice for when the monetary system fails.

Re:Domestic vs. Foreign

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm sure walking up to an enemy combatant on a battlefield and saying "You have the right to remain silent" works really well. Cops can kill people who

The drones apparantly got him too!

No Skynet jokes?

[Red Flayer]

From the summary, emphasis mine:

Especially given the difficulty in locating and targeting individuals from aircraft, risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous (please no Skynet jokes)

Resistance is futile. This article will be assimiliated into the collective conscious of slashdot, and will become subject to Skynet jokes whether you like it or not.

There. A skynet comment and a borg comment rolled into one...

Bet you didn't see that coming, submitter.

Re:No Skynet jokes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but he did see it coming! He was obviously sent back in time to St. Patrick's Day 2010 to stop a drone programmer from overshooting the Ballmer peak with green beer.

Re:No Skynet jokes?

[TangoMargarine]

You forgot the xkcd link.

Re:No Skynet jokes?

[TangoMargarine]

Also,

from the skynet-jokes-are-allowed-and-encouraged dept.

(please no Skynet jokes)

does not compute.

Re:No Skynet jokes?

[PhilHibbs]

You could have stuffed in an "I for one welcome our murderous unmanned aerial overlords" for good measure.

US Citizens

[Shakrai]

If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?

Next up: ACLU objects to US Military engaging in warfare, suggests borrowing a page from Steven Spielberg and replacing all issued M-16s with walkie-talkies.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

They could seize any of their domestic assets - I'm sure they're using those to finance their terrorism.

They could also harass any domestic relatives.

Re:US Citizens

[bdsesq]

The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".

Somehow I have trouble generating sympathy for anyone who gets hurt standing next to Osama or Im-a-dinner-jacket when they get taken out.

Re:US Citizens

[Shakrai]

The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians.

Re:US Citizens

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Of course, innocents are always left in peace.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?

Can you prove that? Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?

Re:US Citizens

[Angst Badger]

If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?

I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys. We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.

The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place. To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.

Re:US Citizens

[nedlohs]

The ACLU isn't asking them not to do this.

They are asking: what is the legal basis for doing this.

The government can just reply with "paragraph 13 of section 6, part 9 of statute 9201", assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course. Or they could say "they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to"

Or just add the ACLU to the list I guess.

Re:US Citizens

[TubeSteak]

If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?

Try this article if you're confused about the ACLU's motives
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/nat_hentoff/article_085a3dc4-2725-11df-afa2-001cc4c03286.html

Here's the short version of things that are bothering the ACLU:
1. Lots of foreign civilian casualties
2. "nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"
3. we don't know under which American laws and international treaties the President has authorized this program of targeted killings

No matter how the Pakistani Government feels, bombing Pakistani civilians is only going to piss off and radicalize the locals.

Re:US Citizens

[Shakrai]

Lots of foreign civilian casualties

Maybe if they'd clean up their own country we wouldn't have to do it for them.

Re:US Citizens

[Shakrai]

Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?

The US Army can't wipe it's own ass without the permission of the Commander-in-Chief. The question is should the President be allowed to order the US Military to kill Americans who are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic?

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm of the opinion that US citizens are entitled to due process when dealing with the US government. I for one would not like to see this kind of thing happen on domestic soil, even if a citizen is employed in the service of an enemy of the republic.

Re:US Citizens

[benjamindees]

First of all, "this Republic" hasn't declared war on anyone but Saddam Hussein, who is now dead and deposed. I doubt you can define who our "enemies" even are.

Secondly, US Citizens retain their rights regardless of their location or whether the military feels like assassinating them. The Constitution defines treason for a reason.

And, yes, I'm sure the ACLU and anyone else with half a brain objects to the US military engaging in undeclared warfare targeting US citizens.

Did you eat lead paint as a child, or what?

Re:US Citizens

[benjamindees]

No, actually, if you'd stop doing a half-assed job of "cleaning up" other countries, terrorists might not have flown planes into fucking office buildings and we wouldn't be having this retarded discussion.

Re:US Citizens

[benjamindees]

And the answer is "no".

The goddamn president doesn't get to define the "enemies of the Republic" and he certainly doesn't have any authority to assassinate US citizens.

Re:US Citizens

[jmalicki]

The ALCU is probably looking for "due process of law".

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians.

You mean: "allegedly enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians."

Re:US Citizens

[jmalicki]

No - the question is whether or not the claim that they are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic needs to be established at trial, with due process of law.

Re:US Citizens

[dyfet]

There is a concept in the U.S. constitution already for such circumstances. If they are acting against people in or of the United States, it is called Treason, Section 3, Article 3, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

One thing we learn from this is that treason (and perhaps even so called "enemy combatants") is the exclusive domain of the congress, not the executive branch. We also learn there remains specific due process rights U.S. citizens have even if they choose to take up arms against the United States. Now, if some U.S. citizen is "employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", but his or her actions do not involve waging war against the United States (or citizens of), then the matter is one for the laws of the nation involved to handle, not the United States. Or do you similarly suggest that the Chinese government should be allowed to try and execute dissidents in the United States if they choose? Perhaps Chinese drones should be allowed to freely roam American skies looking for those they decide are enemies of their state too? If one state claims this right to act lawless without it being repudiated, then all states by extension can certainly claim to do the same.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they'd clean up their own country we wouldn't have to do it for them.

Personally I feel the US could do with a cleaning up, those gun nut militias scare me. Worse yet they're just on the other side of the border of my country. Maybe the military should fire some missiles over the border and get rid of them, since the US is not willing to clean up their own back yard.

I mean, maybe if they'd clean up their own country we wouldn't have to do it for them.

Re:US Citizens

[SydShamino]

Or do you believe that the US army should be able to execute any American citizen who are not on US soil if the army feels like it?

The US Army can't wipe it's own ass without the permission of the Commander-in-Chief. The question is should the President be allowed to order the US Military to kill Americans who are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic?

I don't think the ACLU is even asking this question. All they want to know is HOW the president was allowed to order the US Military to kill Americans who are serving with foreign enemies of this Republic, via unmanned drones. They'd like to see the legal justification for that decision.

There's no reason the government should be able to keep the legal justification for that decision private. If it's legal, tell the world why and defend it.

Re:US Citizens

[Hatta]

what the hell does the ACLU want?

It's right there in the summary:

The ACLU has sued the United States Government to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 'the release of records relating to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles -- commonly known as "drones" -- for the purpose of targeting and killing individuals since September 11, 2001."

If these records show that we're only killing "US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", that would be wonderful. I'd suggest that the ACLU stop there. If those records show that we're not only killing enemies, then there are serious questions to answer.

You can't just assume that every non-military US citizen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is helping the insurgents without some data to prove it. All they're asking for is the data.

Re:US Citizens

[Hatta]

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians

What about the US citizens who are not on American soil, but have not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder Americans?

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that they are actively assisting people the US government has arbitrarily declared to be our enemies. In some cases the enemies are indeed fighting the US, and in some cases the people are indeed helping those fighters, but in many cases your government has been WRONG. You assume the administrative branch of your government is infallible, which is absurd. That's why there's due process and courts of law. How much proof do you need that your government has made hundreds of mistakes when accusing people of being terrorists? Hundreds of people have been released from Guantanamo becuase there was not enough evidence to charge them. Now, what if your government starts calling anyone who strongly disagrees with it a terrorist? Draw that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: you'll have federal agents executing extreme left-wing and right-wing activists on US soil. But its ok becuase the government called them terrorists, right?

Re:US Citizens

[shutdown -p now]

I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals

Of course it is permissible. Snipers have been deliberately assassinating key military leadership - officers etc - since WW2. They're still legitimate military targets, you know.

Is there an inherent possibility for mistake? Sure, there is. But it's not any different from when you shell an enemy camp on intel cue, just to find out later that it was actually civilian. Does it suck? Yes. Does it mean that soldiers can never fire on anything until they have a warrant from the judge certifying that the target is hostile and legal to engage? Hell no.

Re:US Citizens

[kismet666]

That's not quite the question, you are assuming that the administration makes no mistakes when it makes such accusations. That's ridiculous because we KNOW the US government makes lots of mistakes. Why do people have so much faith in the government's ability to accurately identify and execute people who want to kill innocent civilians yet have no faith in the government to manage healthcare or run the IRS?

Re:US Citizens

[dwillden]

Of course not. Al Qaeda has absolutely no qualms about killing hundreds or even thousands of innocent victims in a single attack. Attacks which target the innocents, rather than attacks that target specific legal targets and either result in collateral casualties, or were accidentally mis-targeted.

I love it when people try to bring up innocent victims in our fight against these terrorists. We wring our hands over even a single innocent death, while they couldn't care less about killing hundreds or thousands at a time. They have no value for human life while we value a single life quite highly. It's war, it's an asymmetric war, innocents will die, most we kill will be accidental or collateral. The ones they kill will be intentional. Can you see the difference?

Remember on a normal day almost 50,000 people worked in the twin towers, luckily most of them were able to escape. What if they hadn't been able to?

Re:US Citizens

[AndersOSU]

Or maybe their aid workers. No, I don't think it's likely, and yes, I think the targets are probably legitimate, but if the US has a hit list that contains US citizens, I'd like to know that there's a process for figuring out how someone makes it onto the list.

Re:US Citizens

[DragonWriter]

If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?

That's a pretty big "If".

I suspect what the ACLU wants is some insight into whether and how the executive branch is assuring that the US citizens it decides on its own to have killed are, in fact, "employed int he service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil" whom it is appropriate to summarily execute.

Re:US Citizens

[DragonWriter]

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil

The Constitution forbids the US government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

It does not add a qualifier "so long as they are on American soil".

Re:US Citizens

[DaveV1.0]

I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals

That statement is a joke right? Here, let me clear things up for you.

1. by your own admission, it is permissible to attack military enemies
2. targets of the drones are considered by the military and the government to be enemies
3. specific individuals are the targets of the drones
4. an assassination is an attack

then you are saying:

I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the attacking of specific military enemies

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

So the US military could kill you on vacation in Mexico without a trial or arrest and it would be legal? Because all of your expected rights as a US citizen by your US government expire when you're on foreign soil?

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

"If US Citizens are employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil, then what the hell does the ACLU want?"

They are looking for some reasonable evaluation of the part of your sentence expressed in the word "if" at the start. How do you know? What goes into the decision? What critical evidence is sufficient to justify the deadly action?

If you want to skip the part where we consider whether or not the statement is valid and just say "US Citizen X is employed in the service of enemies of this Republic on foreign soil", followed by "KABOOM!", fine, but even if the target is accused of the crime of treason such a summary execution isn't exactly the action of a nation of laws and with representatives that are supposed to be bound by those laws.

What it boils down to is pretty simple: even before soldiers are tossed onto the battlefield with a gun to shoot at enemies there are these things they are taught called the "rules of engagement". There are RULES to shooting at enemies. We know what those rules are for a regular soldier, and they fall under broader laws and are tweaked within those laws to satisfy immediate operational goals while not compromising international law regarding warfare. They are meant to minimize such things as civilian deaths, friendly fire, and so on. They are often pretty strict rules and soldiers can be brought up on disciplinary charges and/or legal charges if they break them, up to and including war crimes.

So, what the !#%W!$! are the rules for getting shot at by drones? What rules are they operating under? That's what the ACLU is asking for. You're basically implying that U.S. citizens on foreign soil accused of treason can be summarily executed without trial. Is that okay?

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians

What about the US citizens who are not on American soil, but have not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder Americans?

Well if you're a reporter and you somehow manage to score an interview with Osama bin Laden or some other terrorist bigwig and a shadowy intel organization manages to track you all the way there, I don't mind in the least if you become collateral damage when they fire a Hellfire from a predator or drop a B-83 from a B-2 on him and his buddies.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt you can define who our "enemies" even are.

That's easy :-)
"Drugs" and "Terror", of course.
"Drugs" is almost ready to capitulate after destroying his own body for the past 20-odd years, and "Terror" is surely going to engage in peace negotiations once she's stopped hiding.

Re:US Citizens

[jank1887]

from the actual filing:

Factual Background.
12. Since at least 2002, the United States government has used unmanned
aerial vehicles to conduct “targeted killings” overseas. Many of the drone strikes have
taken place on bona fide battlefields—for example, in Afghanistan. In 2002, however,
the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Yemen that killed several individuals including a
U.S. citizen. According to news reports, the frequency of drone strikes has increased
significantly over the last few years, and in particular in the last year.

Re:US Citizens

[tylersoze]

Uh yeah, they were shooting at them 1) with a gun 2) which generally doesn't cause massive collateral damage 3) during a declared war 4) at an enemy in uniform 5) while on the battlefield. Let's see which of those things is the same as the current situation? Oh right, not a goddamn thing.

Re:US Citizens

[stewbacca]

Again, the FBI is a domestic agency and do not go around to other countries arresting US citizens (see: CIA).

Re:US Citizens

[stewbacca]

How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant? It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.

Re:US Citizens

[Angst Badger]

It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.

Maybe if that did happen more often, Americans might not be so sanguine about the sloppy work being done by the military overseas, where our targets have included wedding parties, schools, and clearly marked tanks commanded by members of allied forces. Perhaps then, they'd get off their capitalized sofas and learn how to spell "missile" correctly.

Being at war is not an excuse for incompetence, violations of the laws of war, or the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Or so we once argued at Nuremburg. On a purely practical, self-interested level, the wars in which apologists spend the most time defending the indefensible in the name of "doing what's necessary" tend to be the wars we lose. And considering that we've effectively lost most of the wars we've fought in recent years and are in the middle of two more conflicts that have boiled down to desperate searches for a dignified exit strategy, maybe it's time we reevaluated what's necessary.

Re:US Citizens

[Shakrai]

No, actually, if you'd stop doing a half-assed job of "cleaning up" other countries, terrorists might not have flown planes into fucking office buildings and we wouldn't be having this retarded discussion.

Like those counties would behave any differently if they wielded the power that we do. Have fun if the 21st century really turns out to be China's century -- you think they'll be as restrained as we have been? I can't wait to see them crack down on the backwards people that somehow wound up with the land containing a useful resource.

Re:US Citizens

[shutdown -p now]

1) Not relevant - so artillery isn't allowed, then?

2) Drone missiles don't cause "massive" collateral damage. Definitely less so than many more conventional methods. And definitely nothing unique to UAVs as opposed to manned planes.

3) So far as I know, a declaration of war or lack thereof does not have any effect on the legality of actions in an armed conflict. If you have any references to the contrary, please cite them.

4) An enemy wears uniform for his own sake - so as to be protected under the Geneva conventions. There is no legal nor moral requirement on combatants to only engage targets in uniforms, when they are otherwise clearly identified as hostile.

5) UAVs also engage targets on the battlefield.

Re:US Citizens

[jollyreaper]

I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals, to say nothing of the accuracy of the intelligence that leads to such assassination missions and the extensive collateral damage that may end up creating more enemies than it destroys. We are, after all, talking about an intelligence community whose failures over the last fifty years would be comical if the consequences weren't so grave.

Plus it's the extra-judicial killing of American citizens. Currently, our laws support judicial killing but the whole process is open to public scrutiny. Cops are allowed to use lethal force but every action is subject to review and criminal prosecution if the cop acted illegally. While there have been some awful exceptions, generally speaking, representatives of the government can't just kill you for no good reason and get away with it. And our legal system is based on the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than send one innocent man to jail. It's meant to error on the side of caution.

If we were to declare a special case for citizens who are criminals beyond the means of law enforcement to capture, who it might only be possible to kill from afar, whose continued existence threatens the lives of American citizens, the judgement call on killing them should not be held by the same people who do the killing. There should be a chance for public review and accountability. And if we're going to kill them, we'd damn well better not take out a dozen bystanders while we're at it.

The failure of the "let's just trust our leaders" model is what spurred us to form a republic in the first place. To have it come up again in the context of the two biggest military disasters of our nation's history suggests that someone isn't paying attention to the reality on the ground, and it's not the ACLU.

Yes, a thousand times yes.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

If these people wanted due process of law they should have remained on American soil and not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder American soldiers and civilians

What about the US citizens who are not on American soil, but have not enlisted in the service of foreign organizations that are trying to murder Americans?

Relax, the Dems are too cowardly to shoot anyone, and the Republicans never make mistakes. What could possibly go wrong?

Drone: I'm from the government...
Citizen: And you're hear to help? Oh great.
Drone: No, I'm here to kill you. Boom.

Re:US Citizens

[clarkkent09]

"sloppy work", "incompetence, violations of the laws of war, or the indiscriminate killing of civilians"

And you are really sure about that, right? Or are you just talking out of your backside? By what standard is our military doing a sloppy and incompetent work in Iraq and Afghanistan? Show me another army that has fought wars of that scale with so few casualties on both sides and who takes as much care about avoiding harm to civilians and you might have a case.

Re:US Citizens

[Kumiorava]

Making a list of people to be exterminated is not allowed without proper disclosure on who is on the list and why. It has nothing to do with war or ways war is supposed to be fought.

Maybe someone is added there by mistake or intentionally, once a person is on the list it's hard to get off of it unless you know it. US citizens have legitimate reasons to be and live in Afganistan, Iraq, or elsewhere in the world that could be considered warzone by US.

You belief that the government always does the right thing and no mistakes is adorable.

Re:US Citizens

[KarlIsNotMyName]

We, the west, have killed so terribly many more innocents than what these terrorists have done. What we focus on is when our soldiers die. But what we ignore, is the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died in the last decade, because of our wars.

Re:US Citizens

[stewbacca]

Spelling missile correctly and making a typo are two different things entirely. People skills go a long way in my book.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, how dare the US invade Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, leading a Saudi living in Afghanistan to send some Saudis to fly planes into buildings.

Retarded discussion indeed.

Re:US Citizens

[shutdown -p now]

"nonmilitary personnel including CIA agents [and possibly contractors] are making targeting decisions, piloting drones and firing missiles"

I agree that this thing - and this particular thing only - is a real problem.

When a legal combatant kills an enemy on the battlefield, that's not murder, whether done by aiming rifle and shooting, or by pressing a button to fire a missile from UAV, and whether this happens during the "heat of the battle", or is a precalculated strike at key enemy personnel.

But a civilian shooting at anyone (note: member of armed militia clearly advertising himself as such via an identifiable badge or uniform is not a civilian anymore) - whether enemy combatant with respect to his country, or not - is committing murder, unless doing so in self-defense, and regardless of whether it happens on the territory of U.S., or abroad.

Oh, and they have contractors piloting UAVs? Seriously?

Re:US Citizens

[anaesthetica]

We didn't declare war on Saddam Hussein either. Congress has not declared war since WWII. Congress did pass a law authorizing use of force against Iraq. For what it's worth, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa on behalf of Al Qaeda that amounts to a public declaration of holy war against the United States.

Re:US Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

ACLU wants the prevent the targeting of individuals, but it's okay to bomb the enemy locations and kill 10's of thousands of people, worked well in WW2, especially in Dresden. Someone would save a lot of money that way, just use bigger bombs instead of those expensive drones and smart bombs.

And those two biggest military disasters were Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001, both were military attacks in the course of a war, just because the American's didn't get it does not make those two attacks any less part of their respective wars.

Re:US Citizens

[jwhitener]

"what the hell does the ACLU want? The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights? What the hell?"

Exactly. Like, if I left the USA because I hated it and decided I believed some foreigner's ideology that the west is Evil, and I choose to fly into Paris and plan and attack an embassy, we should certainly use F16s or drones with hellfire missiles to strike my Paris apartment building.........

Now you might say, well of course we wouldn't do that in Paris. Too many collateral casualties, some of the people in the apartment might be pro-western/friendly, etc...

At what point would the ratio of unfriendly to friendly become favorable to dropping a laser guided bomb in Paris?

It is certainly easier to drop a missile than it is to arrest someone, it doesn't make it right. The only way we are getting away with drones in the first place, is because the villages and countries that they are landing on have very little voice in the world.

The main problem is that this is not a war. These are not soldiers we are fighting. They are mixed in with friendly targets nearly all the time. They do not have a central figure or state that can ever surrender. There are no battlefield boundaries, and no where for the general populace to retreat to.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that the military is very careful about minimizing collateral damages, but are any collateral damages acceptable when this isn't a war, these aren't soldiers, they can (as a ideological group) never surrender? For that matter, is planning or thoughts/speeches criminal? What if I, as a US citizen, go to some western hating village and train and train and train but never do anything? Is just hanging out in a village criminal and deserving of death?

There are way too many grey areas for this to be as simple as "bomb" or "don't bomb". The ACLU is right to examine the policies behind drones, especially when it concerns US citizens. I wish someone was examining it for non-US citizens also. Like for instance, these Pakistanis. http://news.antiwar.com/2010/03/10/civilians-among-17-killed-in-latest-us-drone-strikes/

English in What?

[e2d2]

  This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles, and the US government evidently doesn't want to discuss it.

Do they speak English in What? I don't understand the joke or relevance. Can someone hit me with a clue?

Re:English in What?

[TerranFury]

Reference to recent Toyota recall. The cars supposedly accelerated even if you didn't tell them to.

Re:English in What?

[imakemusic]

*picks up ACLU*
*hits e2d2*

Re:English in What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[ircmaxell]

More importantly, does the ACLU have any problem with snipers? Typically they are involved in "execution" style attacks (where the individual is stalked, targeted and terminated)... Sure, the sniper can also be (and is usually used in) a support role for a group of soldiers (Which drones do routinely), but they can and do target individuals. How is that any different from a drone (Which can do the same exact thing, but requires less man-hours of training and has less risk associated with it)? And who cares if they are targeting US citizens? It's not like they are flying over and killing innocents, the citizens they are targeting are consorting with the enemy (Well, I assume, but if they are targeting civilians, I have a feeling they'd cover that up so well (just like they do with every other "questionable" practice)...

This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[bistromath007]

UCAVs are not at all autonomous. For the very reasons already mentioned, they basically can't be. They can autonomously fly around and look at things, but firing weapons requires somebody on the ground calling for a strike, and somebody in a shack somewhere actually making it. It's not as though a drone can actually see the face of any people its shooting at; how would it know that it has found somebody on The Dreaded List unless somebody on the ground first said "he's over there?" The legality of killing people with drones is thus basically identical to the legality of doing so from any other aircraft. Good luck stopping that.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[Yvanhoe]

The US military doctrine says that the order to opened fire has to be issued by a human. The only exception is when shooting down unmanned vehicle (eg. incoming missiles) than an autonomous "fire" decision can be taken.

I am not sure that the main issue is that it is fired from drones. I think the main issue is that it is shooting at US citizen outside of any judicial overseeing and that being done from drones, video records of the operations exist.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[Anonymous Coward]

If US citizens are taking up arms against the United States, it is quite irrelevant whether they are citizens or not.

The idea that civil rights exist on a battlefield is entirely absurd, despite recent Supreme Court decisions. Soldiers fight wars. They don't have time to investigate to decide whether probable cause exists to detain an enemy or not.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[paiute]

UCAVs are not at all autonomous. ...firing weapons requires somebody on the ground...
It's not as though a drone can actually see the face of any people its shooting at; how would it know that it has found somebody on The Dreaded List

Yet.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[Hatta]

If US citizens are taking up arms against the United States, it is quite irrelevant whether they are citizens or not.

That's a big IF. How do you know they're taking up arms, and not just aid workers concerned about women's rights in the newly fundmentalist Iraq? That's why we need this information, to answer that IF.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

No it's not. It's a prescription for a healthy society. Sometimes it has some negative side effects, but then you see your doctor and get the prescription changed (or have a constitutional convention, as the case may be). Simply disregarding it is not an option.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that civil rights exist on a battlefield is entirely absurd

Assassinations usually aren't done on a battlefield. Usually they're done while the target is sipping coffee in a cafe, or riding down a street, or watching a show.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[kismet666]

Sigh... These US citizens and a whole lot of foreigners are being assassinated in non-combat situations. The drones are being used precisely for this scenario: execute someone who isn't actually shooting at US soldiers while minimizing the risk of US soldiers getting injured. And a lot of these drones are being operated by non-military personnel too, so you are ok with the CIA and its contractors executing people, including US citizens? Will you still be ok if the CIA starts executing political extremists in the US simply becuase the president said that the protesters are terrorists who were thinking about violent actions?

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[MobyDisk]

How would it know that it has found somebody on The Dreaded List

Wow: you just made me realize that someone...somewhere... is working on facial recognition for drones.

Re:This is a pretty stupid thing to be scared of.

[Hurricane78]

Facial recognition -> Trigger.
There. Done.
And don’t think “OMG TEH TERRORISTZ” wouldn’t count as an excuse to do that.

Really?

[drexlor]

UAVs allow operators to make intelligent decisions because they are not in the heat of battle, change shifts every hour, have someone behind them helping them make decisions, and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians. There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.

Re:Really?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Operator: "20 bucks says I can shoot the turban off of that guy's head".
Supervisor: "You're on!".

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And anybody who thinks a UAV is any more remote than a cruise missile or a laser-guided bomb from a F16 is kidding themselves...

Re:Really?

[MrMista_B]

So, they are deliberately targeting American civilians, in cold blood. Premeditated. With someone behind them helping them make decisions.

Do you even realize how heinous that is? For the love of God, I hope you do.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no comparison to other methods in regards to reducing civilian casualties.

Which doesn't prevent it from being used in such a way that it is guaranteed to cause many civilian deaths, ie by targeting a wedding to take out one or two *suspected* terrorists.
Or maybe they mistake weddings for training camps, more than once - "intelligent decisions" for sure.

Re:Really?

[drexlor]

I don't personally know the details to why they have 3 American Civilians on their hit list. That's technology independent. I'm just saying that they will have a better understanding of the situation to make better decisions through drones.

Re:Really?

[MrMista_B]

You think autonomous killing drones making lethal decisions based on software routines and algorithms is 'making better decisions'?

There's something wrong with you.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain the "advanced payloads that identify threats over civilians"? Because that sounds like a level of automation that would worth getting interested in - you know, weapons that choose their own targets based on threat level?

Re:Really?

[Cyberax]

"and have advanced payloads identifying actual threats versus civilians"

Probably that's why we have so little civilian casual...

Oh, wait?

Re:Really?

[drexlor]

They're not autonomous like you think they are.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold?
Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination?
When Admiral Yamamoto (a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt. Do these hits get authorized by President Obama?

Re:Really?

[Hatta]

What else is a soldier? I think you could argue that soldiers have better software routines and algorithms than anything else man has made, but I don't think you could really argue that they are not making lethal decisions based on software routines. All mental activity corresponds to brain chemistry, which corresponds to physics, which is just math, which is just a bunch of algorithms.

Re:Really?

[drexlor]

A classic example is using IR to identify weapons that were recently fired. If they are hot then they were more than likely involved in recent gunfire.

Re:Really?

[dwillden]

Cite. UAV's are flown by Air Force pilots. Pilots who by training and doctrine wont take a crap without following a lengthy checklist.

and this will accomplish what?

[Pinhedd]

I fail to see what the ACLU hopes to accomplish with this. The nationality of a target is really of little to no importance in this case and if anything should send up a red flag. I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan. As has been said above, operational details are classified and exempt from the FOIA.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[digitalchinky]

Perhaps you don't really understand the problem then. Assuming you are a US citizen with US passport, and you're wandering around in some foreign country, you are still, legally, an American citizen under US law.

Someone, for whatever reason, decides to shove your name on a top 10 target list. Your nationality doesn't matter beyond the convenient fact that you are no longer on US soil. So what you say? They were making bombs to kill US soldiers - well, in that particular instance I would agree with you if caught in the act of doing that, but what if the person is just walking along a remote mountain top soaking up the sunshine.

You are okay with this? Simply being on a target list makes it okay for your country to disown you? Okay, look at it another way, you (figuratively speaking) travel to a foreign country and sleep with a minor, on your return home you are prosecuted as a pedophile. Sometimes your country will disown you to death just because you stand atop foreign dirt, other times they will prosecute you for your actions while there.

You might be right, I might be wrong, who knows, but I think the wise course of action is to take a closer look at what is actually going on.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[kismet666]

Hmmm, volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency's effort to provide medical care? Build schools? Install wells and sewage treatment systems?

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[Hatta]

I cant really think of many legitimate reasons a US born person should have be wandering around in the tribal regions of Pakistan.

US Born != US citizen. It might surprise you to learn that there are many Pakistan born US citizens. Should going home to visit your family make you a legitimate target for a UAV?

There's also missionaries, womens rights workers, etc., etc.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[DaveV1.0]

Interesting post. Except:
You are assuming that someone is going to "shove your name on a top 10 target list" for no reason. Your assumption that one will be targeted because one is " just walking along a remote mountain top soaking up the sunshine" is foolish and unsupportable.

One does not simply end up on a target list for no reason. Those on the target list are known enemy combatants or leaders. In order to get on the target list, an American must effectively disown his country and take up arms against it.

You are wrong because you start from the false premise that one can and will get one's name on a target list for no reason.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[jmalicki]

You are wrong because you start from the false premise that one can and will get one's name on a target list for no reason.

And the constitution still provides for due process of law, where the only reason I can end up on a target list to be eligible for punishment of a crime is for a court of law to rule that I belong there, not merely for an intelligence agency or even the President to decide on their own.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[Capt_Morgan]

No YOU are the making the assumption that the "target list" only contains people who should be on there.... That's what the entire lawsuit is about. Since this entire iraq/afghan disaster started 10s and possibly 100s of thousands of innocent people have died. Shedding some light on how decisions to kill people are made shouldn't be a problem for anyone

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[DaveV1.0]

Are you actively engaging in war against the United States?
Were each of the soldiers of the Confederate States of America tried in a court before the American Civil War?

You are hung up on calling waging war against the U.S. and its troops "a crime" while it is, in fact, war. If the targets were to surrender, they could be tried for a number of crimes, but as active enemies of the United States, they are valid enemy targets regardless of their nationality.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[jagapen]

One does not simply end up on a target list for no reason. Those on the target list are known enemy combatants or leaders. In order to get on the target list, an American must effectively disown his country and take up arms against it.

You are wrong because you start from the false premise that one can and will get one's name on a target list for no reason.

Prove it.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[Lithdren]

Since when was it against the law to travel outside the US? The problem with your argument is where do you draw the line? First its "You cant travel to the warzone citizen!" then its "You cant travel to the non-preapproved vacation spot, citizen!" then its "you cant leave the US, citizen!" and eventually you'll end up at "Its past 5:45PM local time, you cant leave your house, citizen!"

We're not dealing with a "Guy from jersy picks up an AK, flys to Afganistan, and opens fire on a checkpoint" situation. This is a "A guy from jersy has been spotted in Afganistan, and we think he's with the enemy" situation. What if we're wrong? What if he is there for some actual reason? should we be wary of the guy? Hell yes! should we drop a bomb on the house he's in? err...no?

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[inerlogic]

US Citizen != US Born

there, fixed that for ya....

if you're born in the US, or born to at least one parent who is a US Citizen, then you are a US Citizen....

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[DaveV1.0]

I am not on the list, therefore one does not end up on the list for no reason. QED.
Now, prove that people end up on the target list for no reason.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[jc42]

I am not on the list, therefore one does not end up on the list for no reason. QED.

Heh; very funny.

Now, for a possibly close parallel, consider all the people who have ended up on the Homeland Security folks' "no fly list" simply because someone with a name vaguely like theirs was fingered by some unspecified person. This apparently is the sort of logic that the US security people use to build the no-fly list. A simple similarity of names suffices to get you treated as an Enemy. And, more to the point, this shoddiness in building enemy lists is becoming well known to the rest of the world, and is now a significant part of the world's image of the US government.

In any case, how do you know you're not on the US's drone assassination list? Do you have a verifiable copy of the list? If precedent is any indication, and name very much like yours just might be on that list. And precedent also says that a similarity in their written form of a name to your spelling of your name is easily enough to get you fingered as an Enemy.

If you don't believe any of this, fine, but consider that what the ACLU has done is attempt to get verification that the US governments handling of the drone assassination list isn't actually as shoddy as the TSA's no-fly list has turned out to be. And the US government has stonewalled their requests. In just about any "court of public opinion", this would be taken as a tacit admission that what people suspect is true.

In other words, whether you believe it or not, this sort of story is causing a major PR hit to the US's reputation. Discussions like we're reading here are also read abroad, and add the the information that a good number of US citizens agree with such shoddy list building. The only practical way to fix this is to present the evidence that the drone assassination list is being handled responsibly. The US government has refused to cooperate with this, by failing to provide the documentation that the ACLU wants. This tells most anyone who's paying attention all they need to know about the US government's attitude toward the lives of people in the rest of the world.

(Actually, it's not just the rest of the world; much of the US population has become aware of the way the no-fly lists have been mismanaged. This has added significantly to the American distrust of their government's security people. Some people in the government do worry about this, but they're pretty much helpless to do anything about it. And I find myself worrying that some people I know who are doing relief work in remote parts of the world may be the victim of a US drone killing. I've read nothing about this issue that even starts to reassure me that relief workers won't be targeted as "enemy combatants". If they can be classified as enemies in a domestic airport, they could easily be so classified while working in some poor, obscure corner of the world.)

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[DaveV1.0]

If I was on a drone assassination list, I would be be dead by now. I actually use Google Latitude *gasp*.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The no-fly list is a list of names used by people who could be dangerous. The targets of the drones are known and verified terrorist/enemy combatants. One is a list of possibles, one is a list of knowns.

Re:and this will accomplish what?

[jc42]

The targets of the drones are known and verified terrorist/enemy combatants.

And how do we know this?

(Note I said "know", not "believe". ;-)

The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

The war is controversial in general, but when it comes to actual operations on a warzone (in a country which has insurgency targetting US forces), citizenship should not be a factor in decision concerning use of force. A human life is not more valuable because the person happens to hold a US password. If you go and join some insurgency movement in a war torn country, expect to be treated like any other insurgent.

You may have a case against the drone war in general on humanitarian or human rights grounds, but don't play the "I'm am American and thus untouchable, kill those foreign Muslims but don't you dare to kill me, even if I'm doing the exact same thing. If you want US liberties, guess what, you should have stayed in the fucking US. The ALCU is way out of line here.

Time to jack bauer them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to jack bauer them!

On a server buried deep in NORAD...

[KillaBeave]

... the following line of code just executed.

hitList.add(new Target("Soulskill"));

Re:On a server buried deep in NORAD...

[Pinhedd]

man if our defences are running on Java/.NET we're seriously fucked!

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[sopssa]

Yeah, because an airplane in a few miles with only thermal vision on has the same accuracy than when a sniper is stalking and on a good opportunity targeting and shooting a target.

Jurisdiction and other issues

[smd75]

I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.
Plus they are the American Civil Liberties Union, Not only are the targets NOT american, the dont really have Civil Liberties either.

Im assuming the pilots behind the UAVs have target criteria, and need to provide evidence of said criteria to receive permission to eliminate the target.

Excuse me for the muslims to not respect the geneva convention, not be uniformed, and the fact they take pleasure in hiding behind their families or neighbors, sick, injured or children. When a few individuals fire at you from a crowded market, you want me to just sit there and deal with being shot at and possibly die, FU ACLU.

Also, whats the word we can take from those countries that they were actually civilians? Someone carrying a gun is militia, someone who died carrying a gun was a soldier, but in the time it takes to get a team in there to confirm kills, those guns disappear and now proof of militia is gone and so they are just civilians now. I doubt the Civilian casualties are actually as high as they are perceived. I think it usually is militia, but someone else picks up the gun and takes their place.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[smd75]

I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.
Plus they are the American Civil Liberties Union, Not only are the targets NOT american, the dont really have Civil Liberties either.

Im assuming the pilots behind the UAVs have target criteria, and need to provide evidence of said criteria to receive permission to eliminate the target.

Excuse me for the muslims to not respect the geneva convention, not be uniformed, and the fact they take pleasure in hiding behind their families or neighbors, sick, injured or children. When a few individuals fire at you from a crowded market, you want me to just sit there and deal with being shot at and possibly die, FU ACLU.

Also, whats the word we can take from those countries that they were actually civilians? Someone carrying a gun is militia, someone who died carrying a gun was a soldier, but in the time it takes to get a team in there to confirm kills, those guns disappear and now proof of militia is gone and so they are just civilians now. I doubt the Civilian casualties are actually as high as they are perceived. I think it usually is militia, but someone else picks up the gun and takes their place.

UAVs will never be automated when it comes to killing. That is something that has too much potential for snafu, the military would never allow it. They are autonomous as far as flying a pattern, as any plane is (yes even commercial flights are mostly automated now). Firing control will never be a non-human decision.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[Pinhedd]

I was having this exact discussion with my family a few days ago. The only difference between a market full of militants and a market full of civilians is the number of guns scavenged from their corpses.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[JaredOfEuropa]

Really? IIRC there are some US air defense ships (or whatever they are called) that have a "kill anything that looks unfriendly" mode, which pretty much makes autonomous decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if we'll soon see flying or land-based robots that make autonomous kill decisions. I suppose an operator will still have to tell the robot to stand down or go hot, and perhaps have a self destruct option.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[Pinhedd]

they may have developed such a technology at one point or another but no automated interceptor aircraft are employed at all. The US does employ automated defense systems such as the Phalanx CIWS but these still require human monitoring and wont engage large targets such as aircraft.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[radtea]

Firing control will never be a non-human decision.

And we can close up the patent office because everything has already been invented.

And that atomic power stuff? Moonshine, man, pure moonshine.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I'm not entirely sure they can sue this due to jurisdiction issues.

So... If I launch a UAV from international waters and fly it to e.g. Miami and drop a missile on your grandmother, that's ok?

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[smd75]

Why would you be killing my grandma, and why is my grandma in Miami?

Maybe if she were part of some group that was trying to kill me and she happened to fit all the criteria needed for a UAV to drop a missile on her, then maybe she should be introduced to a missile.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[smd75]

It doesnt matter if it gets invented or not, im sure someone is already working on it. It is an ethics problem, regardless of how awesome a technology is at recognizing the actual targets, an object of war will never be able to decide for itsself whether a target is friendly or enemy. It will always be a human pressing the button to engage the target. At least with the US Military.

Re:Jurisdiction and other issues

[smd75]

The potential for failure is too great to allow a device to shoot at will. I highly doubt you are recalling correctly.

This aren't Cylons were making

no skynet jokes allowed?

[rarel]

Someone always has to ruin the fun :(

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[eldavojohn]

And who cares if they are targeting US citizens?

I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen. Also, I was hoping I would be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of my peers. Yes, I know that's been thrown out the window in some cases but I would still prefer that over "Oh, they killed the Jones' today. Huh, they must have been consorting with terrorists." The ACLU is trying to protect your civil liberties and freedoms whether you want them to or not. Because to them and many other people, things like this are important.

Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[RobotRunAmok]

It's The Robots versus The Lawyers. Death Rays versus Briefcases. Titanium Alloy versus Brooks Brothers Suits.

Sounds like an even match across the board...

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[sconeu]

Maybe the ACLU needs Old Glory Robot Insurance?

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[jc42]

It's The Robots versus The Lawyers.

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

[Citation needed]

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Mashdar]

Why does the ACLU get robots, death rays, and metals? Poor, poor US military industrial complex. Or did you mean Lawyers v Robots? Then the lawyers are on the offensive!

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

check with your mom before you post here again. if she says it's funny, you can post.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Sanat]

Interestingly, over the years I find that I have lined up against the ACLU's positions more often than I agree with what they are attempting to accomplish... this particular case is just another example.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Gravatron]

So the government should be able to kill American citizens without trial, by remote, without regard to collateral damage or loss of life?

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[publiclurker]

If you'd like to volunteer to serve them papers I'm sure we can manage to kill two birds with one stone.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate our freedom?

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Sanat]

I know you are a troll and it is ironic that I am marked as such in the above post.
I like our (America's) freedom... in fact I served 8 years in the military on combat teams during the 60's from 1962 to 1970... defending our way of life. I was unable to serve more because the firing of the weaponry around me left me nearly deaf and unable to continue in the military. And to this day... I wear hearing aids to assist me in my communication and daily work.

I count myself fortunate though for many a good man did not return as I did and for that I am grateful and thank providence often for the opportunity to watch my children and grandchildren grow up.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[NATP]

Shakespeare, Henry VI

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Guess they were unpopular even before Brooks Bro's suits were invented

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reminded of someone...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyFpOp8Ft0Q

While unfortunate that you lost your hearing killing gooks for god and country, that doesn't absolve you of your anti-Americanism. This is a nation founded in liberty. Our nation's moral justification is based in a respect for "inalienable rights".
Throughout its history the ACLU has been the leading advocate for civil liberties in America. Nearly every single important Supreme Court case related to liberty has been argued by ACLU members. They have never backed down from fighting for our freedom, even when it requires defending the rights of anti-American idiots like you to be anti-American idiots.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot that the founder of the ACLU proudly proclaimed that they functioned as "a transmission belt" for the communist party. They disguise this fact by pretending to fight for rights and liberty but they carefully pick and choose only fights that move the communist agenda forward.

They could give a crap about your freedom or rights unless they happen to be a convenient carrier for communism.

Their scam works pretty well too, as demonstrated by your post.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you're trying to say is...
OMG COMMIES!

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Gonzo The Gr8]

Everyone is suitably impressed that you lost your hearing killing brown people. That doesn't change the fact that this is exactly the kind of thing you were supposed to be fighting against. Targeting US citzens? The only difference between this and what the commies were doing is that we've upgraded from secret police in the middle of the night to robots in the sky.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[EvilJoker]

You forgot that the founder of the ACLU proudly proclaimed that they functioned as "a transmission belt" for the communist party.

No, the General Secretary of the Communist Party said that. In the 1930s. (source)

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century Courtroom

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[RichMan]

There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution. Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.

Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts. The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution. Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system. Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[Pinhedd]

If an enemy combatant starts taking potshots across the boarder at US soldiers, escorts a convoy full of weapons destined for insurgents, encourages acts of terror or militancy and engages in these acts in a combat zone, region administered by martial law or region outside the jurisdiction of the united states but not maintained by any government (tribal regions of Pakistan) then they are an enemy and NOT a US Citizen. As a result, they are not afforded any of the protections under our constitution or laws.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[CannonballHead]

Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system.

Hi. I'm a US Citizen. I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies. But you can't kill me without a fair trial because I'm a US Citizen.

Something seems wrong with this picture.

I am not sure that US Citizenship protects you against your own actions that may make you an enemy target due to you joining a military at war with the US. I'm not saying that necessarily is happening her, since of course I didn't read the article, but your statement seems to be painting some pretty broad strokes, as if no US Citizen can ever be killed ("executed" - a much more sensationalist term) by "the government" (the military, etc) without their rights and a court trial.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[at_slashdot]

True, but to some point, if you are armed and dangerous and want to kill people you have no right to "legal process" just like somebody who keeps people in a robbery at gunpoint doesn't have any such rights. If you are captured or you surrender then yes, you have the rights for legal process, otherwise you are fair game.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[couchslug]

If they don't want to eat a Hellfire or similar, they shouldn't be consorting with the opposing forces or in their operational area.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[jmalicki]

Once the armed robber puts the gun down, they certainly do have a right to due process. They aren't fair game to be shot by police two weeks later when they're walking to the grocery store unarmed, even if they plan to rob again.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[paiute]

If an enemy combatant starts taking potshots across the boarder at US soldiers, escorts a convoy full of weapons destined for insurgents, encourages acts of terror or militancy and engages in these acts in a combat zone, region administered by martial law or region outside the jurisdiction of the united states but not maintained by any government (tribal regions of Pakistan) then they are an enemy and NOT a US Citizen. As a result, they are not afforded any of the protections under our constitution or laws.

Nishikawa v. Dulles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishikawa_v._Dulles
"Citizenship may only be forfeited by a voluntary act; the Government must prove voluntariness by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence."

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but you seem to be right and wrong. Voluntary service in an enemy force is grounds for loss of citizenship, but such loss is not automatic. The government must prove such service was voluntary.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[at_slashdot]

Yes, but robbers didn't declare war on US or joined somebody who declared war on US and they are not on foreign soil preparing for such war, I fail to see how this is "putting down the gun". Besides such people in Pakistan almost always carry a gun.

If they came in US I'm sure they would be arrested, if they are in Afghanistan or Pakistan armed and training for jihad that's not equivalent with "putting down the gun".

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[fnj]

[operator] Machine: orders: dot the i's, cross the t's, and kill
[cosmic ray strikes machine]
[machine] Cross the i's, dot the t's, kill, aye aye sir ... done
[operator] Good work ... oh, wait ... oh no ...

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[jmalicki]

Ah! So if I take a vacation to Pakistan, where travel is not restricted, and then someone claims I'm one of "such people" who you claim "always carry a gun", then I can be shot, without due process? Drones regularly kill people who are driving in cars, not actively engaged in battle (even if they are at war), or providing an imminent threat. If I go outside the country and someone accuses me of murder, that doesn't give the FBI the right to track me down, find me unarmed, and kill me without a trial.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, since I'm not over in Afganistan, with my name changed to "Fred the American" in Arabic, training on old Russian made weapons and "kitchen improvised plastic explosives", but instead working in the Midwestern US-- I think my odds of being blown away by a preditor drone are much less than an idiot in a Prius running a stop sign while having his gas pedal get stuck. Which, of course is almost impossible too.

So no worries here about geting "droned to death" here, dude.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[kismet666]

Such naivety, you have complete faith in the government's ability to accurately identify people as actively fighting the US when those individuals are not in a battle. So you also have complete faith in the government's ability to tax you fairly? You are ready to hand over 100% of the healthcare system to the US government? You've never had a government employee make a mistake when getting a drivers license, registering to vote, or anything else?

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[Pinhedd]

I didn't mean to imply that they lost their citizenship, for obvious reasons voluntary intent has to be proven. I'm just saying that being an enemy combatant trumps being a US citizen for all considerations of the rules of engagement.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[AB3A]

Let's see: Adam Gadahn. Has he been convicted? Nope. Is there any doubt this man is a traitor? Uhh, let's see: pals around with Osama Bin Ladin, Reads screeds against the US. Coordinates attacks against US troops. And... he's in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

So, no. There can't be any legal process here. We have no jurisdiction. He gives every indication of committing traitorous acts in a war zone.

As long as we have a military that is required to fight a battle in a war zone, I think it should be legal to kill a combatant without wondering about citizenship, legal status, or whether the method of killing is appropriate.

In any case, this is no different than a sniper shooting at enemy combatants a mile away. And nobody has raised legal issues about that.

Personally, I think the ACLU is hungry and looking for more donations. Any military lawyer worth a damn should be able to have this case thrown out of court in no time.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[at_slashdot]

I actually wouldn't have any problem with you being killed if you go to spend your vacation in a war area, I would actually propose you for a Darwin award.

I also think you missed some relevant pieces from the page you linked to:

"The security situation in many rural areas is extremely hazardous. American citizens need to obtain advance permission from local or federal authorities to travel to the FATA and large parts of the NWFP, and Balochistan Province."

and...

"Pakistani security forces are currently engaged in a campaign against extremist elements across many areas of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of the NWFP, including the Swat Valley. Access to many areas of Pakistan, including the FATA along the Afghan border, is restricted by local government authorities for non-Pakistanis. Travel to any restricted region requires official permission by the Government of Pakistan. "

And... the part about terrorists, anti-Western mobs, kidnappings, Al-Qaida and Talibans: "the presence of Al-Qaida, Taliban elements, and indigenous militant sectarian groups poses a potential danger to American citizens throughout Pakistan, especially in the western border regions of the country. "

So, if you still want to spend your vacation there, and if you are unarmed and you haven't declared the war on US and somehow you are killed by mistake by a drone, well, tough shit.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[DaveV1.0]

The target is not merely a criminal, but rather a soldier for the enemy. He has not "put down the gun" until he has surrendered or has been captured. Until he is captured or surrendered, he is still a valid military target.

This is not just a crime, it is acting as an enemy soldier and attacking the United States.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[gknoy]

I'm not against using drones for that. (Perhaps the ACLU is.) The complaint summary that I read, if I understand it correctly, was about making sure there was a legal basis for the killings, and any limits on who is targeted, as well as how they make sure they got the guy or how they ensure that it's Being Done Right.

Those are all, IMO, valid concerns. I'm just fine with the targets being people we can prove were shooting at us, with targets chosen based on X amount of analysis by Y teams of people of Z evidence, and where operators (as well as analysts) are overseen by group Q which ensures that they are properly following protocol and law when determining targets.

If there's no oversight, that's a problem. Similarly, if insufficient intel is gathered to ensure that it IS a valid enemy target (rather than his neighbor or his milkman), that's also a problem. I believe, based on the article I read in some magazine a few months ago about drone operations, that such intel IS being gathered, in exhaustive detail. I'm less certain (though hopeful and optimistic) that there is oversight over such killings.

The ACLU isn't trying to stop us from killing americans remotely, but rather to ensure that we're doing it Properly (and that mistakes are corrected/disciplined). (If they think we aren't doing it properly, then they would sue to stop the actions. This is all a fact finding mission, right now.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[Nidi62]

When they take up arms against the US, they give up all right and protections given to them under the Constitution, and only have those rights afforded to them under the Geneva Convention.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[Anonymous Coward]

There is supposed to be a legal process where one gets found guilty in a court of law, gets to appeal and then get sentenced to execution. Even then most states have recognized the process has a number of flaws.

Here we apparently have the US government selecting US citizens for death and then carrying out the killing without the involvement of the courts. The ACLU is asking how such operation is valid under the US constitution. Every US citizen should be worried about a process where the government is able to execute citizens without going through the court system. Because the men in black masks might start making local visits.

What do you propose should have been done in World War II during combat when there were a large number of German-Americans who went back to Germany to fight on the German side?

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[russotto]

Hi. I'm a US Citizen. I joined the Russian army and have bombed several US Embassies. But you can't kill me without a fair trial because I'm a US Citizen.

If you get killed while engaging in a hostile act (e.g. some troops catch you planting the next bomb), that's fine. If the US and Russia go to war (right now we're at peace) and you get shot on the battlefield, that's fine too. But if you've merely joined the Russian army and you're walking around Moscow while on leave, the US shouldn't get to summarily execute you just because you're _accused_ of bombing a few embassies.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[babblefrog]

I think you missed the point. Someone in the government has determined that you are an enemy combatant, and has specifically targeted you by name. This has nothing to do with being killed by mistake.

There are people who have a legitimate reason to be there. Aid workers, for one, and people visiting family.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[at_slashdot]

If government declares aid workers and people visiting family as enemy combatants that's bad, but do you have any example of such instances? I just objected to the idea that everybody "has rights", if you declared war on US, you are armed, and plan to kill people you have no rights. Yes, if you are captured I think you should be tried fairly (and not tortured) but while you are armed and dangerous you can be pursued and killed (even in US not only in Pakistan).

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[CannonballHead]

Nope, I definitely do not have complete faith in the government's ability. Nor do I think we need to have a court trial for everyone. It sounded like the original post I responded to was saying that US Citizenship should protect against even getting killed on the battlefield, because that is "execution."

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[CannonballHead]

If we are at war with Russia, and you are a Russian army member, and you're walking around somewhere where the US army can kill you, why is that a problem?

Now, I agree that if we AREN'T at war with army X and you are a US Citizen, then you should be arraigned and have a trial and all that if you are caught. But if we are at war with you... then I don't care if you're a US Citizen or not, you get treated like the rest of the army you're in.

In my mind - and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned - if you are a traitor then you're not really a citizen any more. "Citizens" have certain rights of a country. If you are a traitor to that country, then I don't see why you have those rights anymore.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[russotto]

In my mind - and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned - if you are a traitor then you're not really a citizen any more.

If you're a traitor -- a person who has committed treason, that is making war against the US or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and who has been convicted of same by the testimony of at least two witnesses or who has confessed in open court -- then you are still a citizen (assuming you were to begin with). Revocation of citizenship is not part of the punishment for treason. (18 USC 2381)

Since no such judicial process exists for people on the "kill them from a drone" list exists, whether or not they are traitors is irrelevant.

Re:Due Process, dot the i's cross the t's and kill

[CannonballHead]

Interesting. I did not know they didn't revoke citizenship for treachery. Er, obvious that I didn't know that ;)

this is not offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is criticism of the ACLU off-topic in a discussion about the ACLU?

Get a clue mods.

Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best. It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.

But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial. In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by. WTF?

Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive. But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.

How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing innocent people with a drone is similar to killing someone while intoxicated - the drunk driver may argue that they lost control - but they are still responsible for their action. If the drone kills innocents, then the American government and people should make right - reimburse the innocent people killed and their families as any involuntary killing should be handled.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Lumpy]

So if a government builds their nuclear missle silos on the grounds of a childrens hospital we need to just stand there and say....

"Oh MAN! CHEATERS!!!!!!"

I dont think you understand how war works.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

Look at all the individual targeting that Israel does. There's no war going on. These are terrorists, but typically they are killed in in public where several passers-by die too. So it isn't just your typical missile silo.

You'd have to put yourself in the place of the victim's family to understand how it'd feel. Imagine if your child were to die (god forbid) just cause Israel targeted some terrorist and your kid happened to be walking by. The same applies to every human being.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[JerryLove]

How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.

Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.

Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.

Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.

Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?

No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).

You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[darkmeridian]

Shit happens in war. During wartime, enemy populations risk attack; the Geneva Conventions does not make all civilian casualties a war crime. A guy carrying ammunition can be shot with nary a warning. Certainly, there is no requirement for the arrest and trial for military commanders, who live at risk of sudden and violent death.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me spell something very important out.
WAR IS NOT FAIR! it is not nice, it is not a time where soldiers only fight soldiers. We used to fight like that, soldiers would line up across from eachother on a battlefield and shoot at the enemy. And we know how that worked out.
Oh, and you remember a little thing called the bombing of the twin towers? how many innocents died then? I pray for the souls of those innocents lost when Zarqawi was taken out, but i believe it was worth it to remove him.
If the drones can keep our soldiers away from harm, then I say we let them do their job because their effective at it. And technology has come such a long way from what it was. we used to have to drop thousands of bombs on whole cities where we thought enemy leaders were hiding. Now we just shoot a missile at the building they are in. Seems like a good trade when you think about it.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

Shit happens in war.

It happens nowadays without any war too. There's no declared war in Yemen or in the West Bank. Is the USA currently at war in Somalia?

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

WAR IS NOT FAIR! it is not nice, it is not a time where soldiers only fight soldiers. We used to fight like that, soldiers would line up across from eachother on a battlefield and shoot at the enemy. And we know how that worked out.

As I said in a different comment, this is happening where there's no declared war too.

Oh, and you remember a little thing called the bombing of the twin towers? how many innocents died then? I pray for the souls of those innocents lost when Zarqawi was taken out, but i believe it was worth it to remove him.

The bombing of the twin towers was a terrible act of terrorism, and it touched people because civilians such as you and me were the targets. If civilian lives are worth sacrificing, then there's no good vs. evil happening. No need of specially branding them 'terrorists', when our govt does the very same thing in the act.

I'll listen to you believe "it's worth it", when one of your own children is involved.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

One Question, and One Question mainly--althoughI do agree with you.

Can someone--anyone please explain to me, what the *exact* difference is between "targeted killing" and "assassination" is?

I've pondered on it a bit, and I'm not too happy with the conclusion, but I'm not confident in my answer.

I *think* I know what the legal difference is, but I'm not sure. I mean--an assassin can clearly assassinate ...well... me, a private nobody figure. In English, assassination (at least in popular usage) pretty clearly refers to paying somebody to...well...kill someone. Probably unlawfully so we can exclude executioners from the definition, although I'm not confident. Legally, I think assassination refers to someone in a position of authority. I've never heard of a sniper "assassinating" an officer they scoped though--maybe it's because it's presumably in war? Most places that define it suggest it's a public figure.

If the difference is only semantics--that assassination is murder, (and google define:assassination) most definitions contain the phrase "targeted killing"--then the only difference is that *we assert* it is not murder--that is, we assert our targeted killing is not wrongful.

So we've got three types of killing:
  - of a public or private figure
  - wrongful or not wrongful
  - lawful or not lawful

I suspect, it has something to do in practice with whether or not said figure would *normally* be taken alive in an instance of war/police action, for purpose of political trial and likely execution.

And that right there is the crux of my problem with this issue. Even if these people are NOT soldiers--they aren't soldiers merely because they are not RECOGNIZED as a nation BY THE PEOPLE FIGHTING THEM. They aren't soldiers because if they put their name down on a piece of paper saying "I'm a member of the separatist afghan muhjahadeen"--it would be found, they would be rounded up, and executed. And it's well established that they have intelligence value, and would normally be tried. The execution from the air is quite literally and admittedly an attempt to demoralize the irregular soldiers by the US military.

And given that, I think it's only appropriate to address the legality of the issue as we attempt to fight terror with terror from the sky.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always felt this method of targeting individuals illegal at best. It may be legal to use force when there is a declared war happening and this is among soldiers.

But such targeted killing of individuals has happened in many countries now, without any trial. In several cases, surrounding civilians also become causalities, even though they may just be passers-by. WTF?

Before al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, nobody wanted him alive. But that bombing which caused his death also killed civilians including children in that building, who may have had no choice but to be there.

How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.

Oh jesus christ, get a life. YOU go over there and spend a year on the ground, and see if you come back with that same attitude. Really? You expect us to not shoot at the guy that just shot an RPG at us, run over there and put him in handcuffs, and hope his buddies don't shoot us in the face?

Yes, some of these asshats may have been "citizens" at one point, but when you pick up arms against your own fucking country, all bets are off.

How is using a UAV any different than using an aircraft to drop bombs, other than the fact that it's a more accurate and reliable platform, and the guys running it get a lot more rest, and are a lot more clear headed to make those decisions?

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[dwillden]

Yes innocents die in war. Far fewer by our hand in this war than in previous wars.

We are at war, at war with a movement that does not heed the Geneva conventions, and has no respect for life.

When we strike; collateral deaths, while very limited compared to carpet bombing tactics of the past, do occur. But look at who we are fighting. We do not actively or intentionally target innocents. We don't intentionally bomb busy marketplaces, skyscrapers, crowded bars or any of the other places these people target. When we attack, unfortunately innocents do die. When they attack they intend for innocents to die, as many as possible. Seldom do they even bother to go after "acceptable" military targets. They don't have the courage to go up against a target that might fight back.

You criticize the limited collateral innocent casualties from our carefully targeted attacks(yes even the accidental ones that totally miss the intended targets are still attempts to be careful,) yet give them free ride on blowing up markets, bars, trains, subways, and skyscrapers?

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[sdguero]

Mod parent up.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[stewbacca]

Something tells me Israeli strikes are a bit more precise than your average Hizbollah rocket launched blindly into Israel.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

Oh jesus christ, get a life. YOU go over there and spend a year on the ground, and see if you come back with that same attitude. Really? You expect us to not shoot at the guy that just shot an RPG at us, run over there and put him in handcuffs, and hope his buddies don't shoot us in the face?

If you are talking about Iraq, I bet Bush didn't get a bunch of letters from ordinary Iraqi citizens asking him to come and wage war in Iraq. I have a life. I didn't go kill people in Iraq. Nobody asked you to "go over there and spend a year on the ground". But I wasn't talking about wars alone. Killings by drones and missiles launched from helicopters are happening in peace time in many countries, such as Palestine, Somalia and Yemen. These are enough.. they set a precedent.

Yes, some of these asshats may have been "citizens" at one point, but when you pick up arms against your own fucking country, all bets are off.

How is using a UAV any different than using an aircraft to drop bombs, other than the fact that it's a more accurate and reliable platform, and the guys running it get a lot more rest, and are a lot more clear headed to make those decisions?

Both are bad. Both cause extra deaths of civilian passers-by, who are not involved. Take any recent Israeli taretted-killing in Gaza as an example, or recent US strikes in Somalia. In a non-war situation, how do you really know if the target of a strike is guilty? You may have evidence, but there's a reason why we have courts. Plenty of people will claim to have war crimes evidence against Bush, but any action against him would have to start with prosecution in a court of law. Any other course would seem absurd, and rightly so. The same applies to every other person.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[mukund]

Something tells me Israeli strikes are a bit more precise than your average Hizbollah rocket launched blindly into Israel.

I guess you meant to say 'accurate' instead of 'precise'. You probably do not want to compare the proportions of civilian deaths from Israeli strikes vs. Hezbollah rocket attacks, so your argument is lost there. See the 2006 Lebanon war.

I'm not saying Hezbollah is right or justified. Their rocket attacks are horrible.. even if their rocket attacks miss any targets, they do scare people which is terror. I'm saying that the Israeli targeted killings (through car bombs, helicopter gunships, etc.) are not justified because they cause civilian deaths, and even one is too many. You will understand this better if you put yourself in the place of the family of a civilian who was killed.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[stewbacca]

Well my background allows me to understand it quite well (I have professional proficiency in Arabic, for starters). What I'm saying is that when there's an Israeli attack, it kills EXACTLY who it was intended to kill, in addition to innocent bystanders. The other side randomly launches high explosive missiles into civilian populations. People who can't see the relative differences in this confound me.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[kismet666]

You'd be wrong. Go read about the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, large swaths of civilian infrstructure were destroying including the international airport in Beirut. tens of thousands of residences were destroyed. Now go do some reading about Israelie activities in the occupied territories, the IDF has bulldozed the homes of hundreds of thousands of civilians who had not been suspected of doing anything hostile to Israel. They even ran over a US woman who was protesting nonviolently. I don't approve of the violent activities by Palestinian militants, nor do I approve of the failed attempts by Arab countries to invade Israel, and I find it ironic that most of the neighboring countries have tried like hell to keep the Palestinians off of their land. But the Israeli responses have only made things much worse and harder to resolve.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[Uberbah]

Hmm, rockets.

Re:Due process and fair trial?

[stewbacca]

Access denied. My company must be controlled by the Israelis.

Due process. Civilian aid workers.

[Anonymous Coward]

And who cares if they are targeting US citizens?

Due process.

They could also be there to help all the civilians who are having a horrible time over the war in their country. The CIA and the rest of the Government have made horrendous mistakes with regards to targets and their "guilt".

For crying out loud, in this day and age, the enemy is so obfuscated it's extremely difficult to know who is the "bad" guy.

This "War On Terror" isn't as black and white as on "24", any Arrrrnauld movie, or any other action movie. Of course, all of the arm chair generals who learned their battle tactics and strategy from Spike TV will disagree with the above.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

More to the point, how is this different than any weapon capable of being aimed? Any time a soldier/marine/etc... points a weapon at someone, they are targeting that individual for execution. Is the ACLU's beef seriously that it's not fair to be able to kill our enemies without giving them the chance to kill us?

As to killing US citizens, screw em. If they're innocent bystandars, they sure picked a fucked up place to bystand and should be nominated for a Darwin award. If they're not, then they were traitors and my only regret is that we can't bring them back and execute them several more times.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[ircmaxell]

As far as I can tell, this seems to be about killing a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers (Or is somehow presently engaged in other acts of war against the US)... It's not about finding one on the street and saying he's a bad guy, kill him. If you shoot at a police officer (or even raise a gun towards him for that matter), is he/she going to stop and say "Well, he deserves the right to a fair trial, so I'm going to let him shoot at me while I go try to put him in handcuffs"? No, they are going to shoot back. If the suspect survives, then they will be tried by their peers. But once you engage against either the military or the police, you should consider yourself lucky if you do survive...

I'm not saying that these kinds of things are important, but why the focus on drones? Why not focus on ALL targeted killing? They pick drones, because it's new and scary (They can rally support through sensationalism). Not because it's radically changed the way the military has operated (in terms of who to kill, not in strategy). Don't get me wrong, I think it needs to be looked into, but this appears to me to be a media stunt to try to get the public's interest roused to the point where the military will have to say SOMETHING...

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[couchslug]

Good luck inserting and recovering snipers in hostile territory. If you want to ban war, ban war, but lawfare designed to deliberately expose own-side troops to vastly increased risk of hostile fire should be seen for what it is.

UAV strikes are pinpricks compared to the grossly imprecise methods dictated by technological limits of the past, and are not disproportionate force when the alternative is complete safe-haven for enemy troops.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[spribyl]

Actually it even worse the that, there is no mention of citizenry as part of a right to trial. A person is has to right to a trial by peers.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[blueskies]

because they defend innocents from dying unmanned drones, you think they might not care when people die from manned airplanes bombing skyscrapers?

I don't think they want either action to happen.

No torture

[binkless]

It will be amusing to see how the "no waterboarding" crowd defends itself against this. Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?

Re:No torture

[radtea]

Exactly how is waterboarding worse than remote control assassination of anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby a US target at the wrong time?

Remarkably enough, something doesn't have to be worse than assassination to me morally wrong.

In fact, many things that aren't even as bad as assassination--waterboarding and other forms of torture amongst them--are morally wrong.

Re:No torture

[shutdown -p now]

Let me try. There are 3 cases to consider here:

1. The person affected by collateral damage is himself a legitimate military target. Not a problem.

2. The person is not a legitimate target, but is aware that the guy residing nearby is (Taliban officer etc). We have a candidate for a Darwin award here, no sympathy from me.

3. The person is a not legitimate target, but is not aware that they are residing near something or someone that is. Definitely not a good situation to be in, but the catch is that we (as in, Western society/culture) generally don't consider such casualties proper, and try to avoid them as much as possible. Among other things, by laws of war, you cannot, for example, do a missile strike on a legitimate target if you know that this will inevitably cause significant collateral damage.

The difference with waterboarding is that you cannot "accidentally" waterboard someone. It's always a deliberate, intentional act.

Re:No torture

[Limburgher]

I'm confused. Waterboarding is highly immoral. Remote control assassination of innocent civilians is immoral. Why are we comparing the two?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[at_slashdot]

"I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen." -- that's if you are captured, imprisoned and in general rendered harmless, if you are armed and dangerous and brag/want/plan to kill Americans (and/or declare war on US) you have no such rights... it's the law, and common sense too.

If drones piss them off then.....

[Lumpy]

they will go ape when GI's in the field cover a "bigdog" in backpacks full of C4 and send it into a building full of insurgents..... or down the street to take out the two buildings that are full of people shooting at them.

BOOM!

Who gets to decide who dies?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was only targeting combatants on a battlefield it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is there is a list of people that the military is trying to hunt down and execute outside of a battlefield, the list includes US citizens that haven't been convicted of anything in any court of law or military tribunal.

This means that someone in the US government is deciding which US citizens to execute, with no public or judicial oversight. This seems like exactly the sort of thing the ACLU would be interested in, it is just a pity that news organizations aren't.

I am sure that this secret power to execute US citizens could never be abused and that the people making these decisions would never make a mistake, or cover up that mistake they would never make, but I would feel more comfortable if I knew how the process of deciding who to hunt down and execute worked.

Killing someone who isn't a member of any nations military and isn't currently on a battlefield or actively trying to kill you at the time is a job for the courts not the military.

Re:Who gets to decide who dies?

[kismet666]

Well stated. And such mistakes are already happening. US troops fired on journalists in Bagdad, including reporters sitting on the balcony of their hotel rooms in a hotel that the US had specifically recognized before the invasion as being full of foreign journalists. Whether it was intentional or not is debatable, the fact that a US tank fired on the hotel and killed innocent reporters in 2003 is accepted by all sides. There are a lot of other examples.

Predator

[earlymon]

http://xkcd.com/652/

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[causality]

Yeah, because an airplane in a few miles with only thermal vision on has the same accuracy than when a sniper is stalking and on a good opportunity targeting and shooting a target.

That's ... strange. I remember during our first invasion of Iraq in the 1980s there was a then-famous video demonstrating the use of "smart bombs". The video showed an airplane at a high altitude dropping a bomb that went with pinpoint accuracy down the chimney of a large building, blowing it up from the inside. That was about 20 years ago. There have been no improvements in aerial accuracy since then?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?

Yeah! Yo tell'em Bubba!

The stinkin Japs Bombed Pearl Harbor and I'm still pissed about that! Those two nukes weren't enough for 'em! Or those damn Viet Cong! We need to go back there and finish the job!

So what if we have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of more lives! - It's payback baby!

And those sons of bitches who got the two towers, well, we'll make them pay by killing every last innocent civilian in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and wherever else. That'll show that they can't fuck with the USA! - USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Eventually, we gotta bomb the shit out of the South - Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virgina for start'n the Civil War! Fucking hicks! Why they fired FIRST on Ft. Sumpter! And we lost hundreds of thousands of American lives because of those Southerners! We gotta get more payback! Yes siree!

We're the goddamn beacon of Freedom in the World and we'll bomb the fuck out of you if you don't like it!

USA! USA! USA!

You betcha!

Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[AP31R0N]

i was a 1N051 with an above TS clearance during the Clinton years. i taught LoAC stuff.

If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)

Drones/UAVs are NOT ROBOTS, they do not select targets or pull the trigger. By law they cannot.

Targeted killing is fine in combat. Popping a cap in Mrs. Merkel's ass right now would be illegal and a bad idea for many reasons. If we were fighting Germany, she'd be fair game because she is leader of enemy forces (civilian or not). Germany's minister of arts or some such would NOT be.

If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason. A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.

Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.

i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This smells political.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[benjamindees]

If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.

I'm going to take this sentence out of context since the rest of your post seems to be a bunch of rambling nonsense that has nothing to do with the issue presented.

Define "enemy". (without using the term "combatant")

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[jittles]

How do you have an above TS clearance? Do you mean to say that you had TS clearance with additional classifications? Because there is nothing above TS and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[MobyDisk]

I agree with you, but your last sentence is a bit of a stretch.

i normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This smells political.

They aren't defending anyone (yet). They are just asking "what did you mean by that part about US citizens...?"

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nice if it's black and white.
But you should very well know that this is almost never the case.

sorry

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[bishop32x]

The ACLU is asking about is the process by which the US government decides that someone is a valid target. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that if someone is an enemy combatant (i.e. carrying weapons or attacking friendly forces) they are fair game. The question becomes what happens when the target is a) not in an area of active operations b)not engaged in armed conflict and c)a US citizen.

Lets take a hypothetical case of a US citizen operating in Yemen who the US government believes to be funding AQ. Is it legal for the president to order the US military to kill this person? It would pretty clearly be illegal to summarily execute them if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[AP31R0N]

Was this a serious question or pendantry?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Mirkman]

I used to have a TS/SCI and I can confirm that there is no clearance above TS that is officially recognized and publicly disclosed. However, I also know that there are Special Operation groups that do not officially exist, and there are clearance levels for those groups that do not officially exist. The only reason I know this is because I have a good buddy, that no longer officially exists. All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make. yes i fully expect everyone here to scoff and ridicule the defenders of their very own freedom, however it the larger picture it changes nothing. At the end of the day when you are warm in your bed, most of you are still just desk jockey's with inflated ego's and they are still out in the cold, doing "Anything" to complete the mission, no matter the cost.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is nothing above TS

O RLY?

and of course at all levels there is the "need to know" rule.

Guess you didn't.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[yacc143]

Well, the problem is not collateral damages.

It's the problem that a government in peacetime (despite all rethorics, the US is not at war, war on terrorism is the legal equivalent of war on drugs and other PR stunts) has death lists of people that it intends to murder.

So who decides who is allowed live?

(Btw, you DO REALIZE that the Nazis that laws on the books that authorized them to murder "inferior races". Guess it's better that the US has death lists of people "wanted dead" without any legal base.)

A completely secondary thing is up to which point collateral is acceptable, but that's not the point of the ACLU action.

The ACLU is targeting the part that some part of the executive branch of the US government, decides who gets killed, in secret. Without any review.)

Where is the difference to some rogue dictatorship?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Gallon of Fuel]

ATTN. SPECOPS AND GECKO45 my secret username is CIDDECEP and I am your S2. My authorization code is Six Wun Quebec Oscar Fife. Your presence here is tactically dangerous and compromises our overall mission parameter. Cease and desist all activity on this board. Our "enemies" are deft at computer hacking and may trace you back to our primary locale. You have forced me to compromise my situation to protect your vulnerable flank. This issue will be addressed later.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Mirkman]

I also used to teach LoAC. There are two categories of combatants... Lawful combatants (defined by congress in the declaration of war, and identified by association with opposing force, and identifiable uniform markings.) Unlawful combatants (un-uniformed civilians not directly associated with the opposing force taking up arms against US or coalition forces) That leaves only Non-combatants to include civilians, medical personnel, religious leaders, etc. All of which can in a slit moment become Unlawful combatants by simply picking up and or using a weapon. Nationality does not matter, and neither does location. Problem with a war on "Terror" is that it labels anyone, citizen or not, who conspires or takes offensive action towards the federal government as a "Terrorist" and an "Enemy combatant". Yes there are still legal issues with the Federal government targeting US citizens as combatants. There is a right to due process. They would technically be considered "Traitors" and there is a federal law that dictates how traitors are investigated, arrested, and prosecuted. The maximum penalty for being a traitor is "Death". benjamindees: Why don't you do a little research for yourself if you dont understand something rather than flame on people because of your own ignorance?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[benjamindees]

Define "enemy". (without using the term "combatant")

combatants... combatants blah blah combatants.. Non-combatants blah combatants.. "Enemy combatant" blah blah combatants

Is this something they taught you in law school, or are you ex-military as well?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[jittles]

It's a serious question. I want to know what an above top secret clearance is and what one has to do to qualify. Why is there no public record of any clearance higher than top secret?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[zzsmirkzz]

enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so)

The part you are missing is who decides (and how do they decide) when an American citizen is an enemy combatant. In some cases, like the ones most parroted in this thread, are cut-and-dried and dead simple. There may be other cases that are less so. A lot of people are assuming it is only the people in the first case that are being targeted while the ACLU doesn't want to assume, it wants to know. What evidence must there be to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant and thus target them for execution? They want the entire, written procedure that is followed and they only want it to ensure American citizens are provided due process of law when there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt as that is their right as citizens. This is something every citizen of this country should not only want but demand.

Also, keep in mind, you (as well as many others) use Enemy Combatant as a word that has definite meaning and that when used, inherently proves the guilt of the person labeled. When, in fact, a person can labeled an enemy combatant just by the President's (as well as some members of his staff's) say so. No proof, no trial, no accusation, just he's an enemy combatant said by the right person, makes it so. Its just another form of conveying guilt by label and not by proof, like witch, commie and terrorist before it.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

aiding and abetting people who are trying to kill US soldiers or citizens, trying to kill US soldiers or citizens, or in any way offering support to an organization or the members thereof dedicated to the overthrow of the US government or death of US citizens.

ie, Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[jollyreaper]

If the Taliban has a bomb factory (legit target) in a mosque/hospital/kitten orphanage (illegal target) it becomes a legit target, and for good reason. A AAA cannon mounted on the Eiffel Tower would be a legit target.

When did this change, after we abandoned the Geneva Conventions? I know we still operated under them in Vietnam when a tactic used by the NVA was to locate SAM sites in the courtyards of hospitals.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[dkleinsc]

If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game. Citizenship is a non-issue, enemy combatant trumps citizenship (and rightly so). ... I normally cheer for the ACLU, but i think they are defending the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Who decides whether a US citizen is an enemy (and an enemy of what, I might add)? Who decided they were the "wrong" people? Who proved that they were the wrong people, and to whom? That's the core of the ACLU's point: the Constitution is extremely clear that just because the executive branch says that a citizen is a Bad Guy doing Bad Things does not in fact make it legally so until they've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to the judicial branch. And it's also worth pointing out that military personnel have rules of engagement which spell out who they are allowed to target under what circumstances.

If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.

No, that's not in fact true. When Tim the Ex-Marine and Security Guard built and detonated a really big bomb right next to a US government building, he got all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including a fair and speedy trial. Why? Because it was the executive branch's responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that he was in fact the guy, that they'd gathered their evidence without violating his rights, and had in fact done what they said he did.

The kinds of folks the ACLU are talking about here are those who are not known to have engaged in combat with the US, are not known to be members of any military or designated terrorist organization, and aren't even in or near a war zone. This is about academics being blown up in Yemen, not guys with AK-47's getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[stewbacca]

Excellent post, except I think you miss the point of the ACLU's actions. They aren't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we don't indiscriminately kill US citizens. If they get their information, they'll see that's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[commodoresloat]

It would pretty clearly be illegal to summarily execute them if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?

You're right, Yemen is exactly like New Jersey. With less salt-water taffy though.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[jittles]

Well I would expect anything that they do to be labeled TS w/ some other acronym indicating who has access to that information. Even if no one officially knows what that acronym means they should know they don't have access to that document.

If I came across a document at work labeled "Above Top Secret" I'd probably have a laugh and show it to all my coworkers. If I found a document labeled TS/ATS I would of course immediately call my security officer and made sure that the document was properly secured.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

But we are not at war with Yemen. Where do you draw the line? What if they are in Egypt? Turkey? France? How do you determine in which countries it is legal to kill American citizens who are suspected of supporting terrorists?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

> since the rest of your post seems to be a bunch of rambling nonsense that has nothing to do with the issue presented

You clearly have an inability to comprehend what you read. Try again.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "fish" (without using the terms "water", or "fluid").

Your stipulation is ridiculous, "combatant" is a key concept here, perhaps the key concept. "Enemy" is, in this context, a modifier.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[khallow]

Is this something they taught you in law school, or are you ex-military as well?

Looks to me like he's paraphrasing the US interpretation of the Geneva Convention. Doesn't really matter where he learned it since it would be the same source in either case.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Uberbah]

How do you determine in which countries it is legal to kill American citizens who are suspected of supporting terrorists?

Since the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, defines the battlefield on the war on terror as being the entire planet, it means they are claiming the right to assassinate U.S. citizens anywhere on the globe. Including the U.S.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Uberbah]

All I can say on the subject is that there is no greater honor in life than there is in what they do for a nation of people who will never know what they did or the sacrifices they make.

You mean making tapes of our troops having phone sex with their wives back home?

We're surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations. We've only faced one invasion in our country's entire history. The Soviet Union is long gone.

Our actual defense needs are pretty minuscule.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the geneva convention protections always apply. You are either a soldier or a civilian. A soldier is fair game on the battlefield, but cannot be punished afterwards. A civilian is the other way around. This is the plain language of the Geneva Convention.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

If a US Citizen is an enemy, they are fair game.

How do you know if they're an enemy? If a US citizen has been seen hanging around with insurgents a couple of times, maybe they're one of them; or maybe they're a reporter who's working on the scoop of his life. The US military might have a vested interest in ignoring this distinction, even ignoring evidence that the latter case is correct, if they don't want news stories coming out of a war zone. So it's important that there be some sort of oversight, here.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[jwhitener]

"If we were fighting Germany"

Thats the crux of the matter. We aren't fighting a state. How do the terrorists ever surrender? If I were trained as a terrorist, spotted on surveillance at some point, but decided it was wrong to pursue that path, and were later spotted in a village, targeted, and killed, is that right?

You mention the Eiffel Tower. Why aren't we flying drones over France to get these terrorists? http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/12/paris-terrorist-arrests-continue.html Oh right... because those "collaterals" are people we actually care about? Or is it that they have a bigger voice in the world?

There are a bunch of other issues I'd like to bring up about your post, but it all sort of boils down to the question:
Is it possible to wage a war against an ideology, not a state, while maintaining our laws and morals?

A war with no boundaries, no way to 'win', no way for the enemy to surrender, an enemy without uniforms, and who we apparently selectively execute death sentences for, based on location, not intent or for actually committing a crime. Crazy bomber in NYC = cops. Crazy bomber in Pakistan=missile strike.

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[hyades1]

Re: Quebec

Quit trying to drag us into it with that "Quebec" crap. We're already in enough shit with our fellow Canadians over the whole Maher Arar mess.

Love,

CSIS

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilian != Innocent - If Bob the Plumber makes a pipebomb he forgoes his protection under GenCon and is now an unlawful combatant.

Then why is OK for Joe the Electrician to buy a semi-automatic and mow down more people than might be harmed by a pipe bomb? What about the nuts
spiking tylenol with poison? What about Glenn Beck inciting riots with his puerile bleating?

Re:Former USAF Intel Analyst here

[Anonymous Coward]

"...if they were operating out of New Jersey, but frankly is Yemen any different?"

Yes... Yemen smells better.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Scrameustache]

And who cares if they are targeting US citizens?

I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen.

Two things: First of all, the US constitution guarantees these rights if you're a PERSON, not "only if you're a citizen". The rights reserved to citizens have to do with voting and holding office.
Secondly, the people are granted rights to fair trials in criminal proceedings, and the US government is simply claiming that they aren't prosecuting a criminal matter, easy peasy.

      * Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

        No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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.

        * Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Constitutional Question

[Gorimek]

If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial, merely because the president says so, is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?

Re:The Constitutional Question

[Pinhedd]

they're not killing US citizens, they're killing enemy combatants

Re:The Constitutional Question

[DaveV1.0]

However, that is not what is going on here. Specifically, those targeted are enemy combatants. They are not being targeted "merely because the president says so", but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.

Re:The Constitutional Question

[the_fat_kid]

listen, if the President does it, it's legal.
Right?
isn't that what nixon taught us?

Damn socialist schools teaching crazy things like the rule of law, unalienable rights, due process.
Balderdash.
the CIA would never abuse the power to kill US citizens with out a trial.
or the USCIS,
or homeland security,
or the FBI,
or Blackwater,
or the LAPD...

is that a terrorist that you're hidding there?

Re:The Constitutional Question

[stewbacca]

If the US government has the right to kill US citizens without a trial

It doesn't...

, merely because the president says so

He can't

is there anything it doesn't have the right to do to anyone?

Yes. Killing US Citizens without a trial by order of the President, for starters.

Re:The Constitutional Question

[Wowlapalooza]

they're not killing US citizens, they're killing enemy combatants

I hereby designate you as an "enemy combatant". How does it feel to suddenly lose all of your constitutional rights?

Oh, and don't bother trying to challenge the designation, because it's completely unappealable and outside of our normal legal framework. Just deal with it, get your affairs in order, and if you hear a drone overhead, say your last prayers (if you happen to believe in that kind of thing).

Re:The Constitutional Question

[jagapen]

they're not killing US citizens, they're killing enemy combatants

You're just begging the question. How did they get designated as enemy combatants? Essentially, only because the President said so. Maybe based on facts, maybe not. How do we know?

Re:The Constitutional Question

[Gorimek]

They are targeted merely because the president says they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.

Re:The Constitutional Question

[DaveV1.0]

No, they are targeted because the intelligence and, in many cases, the targets themselves say they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.

Re:The Constitutional Question

[faraway]

<quote><p>No, they are targeted because the intelligence and, in many cases, the targets themselves say  they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.</p></quote>

Because intelligence on much bigger things such as invading another country for the bountiful supply of Weapons of Mass Destruction they had was excellent top notch intelligence.  1 million dead Iraqis later.. still looking for those weapons of mass destruction.

The President is not a King, nor a tyrant.  Only Kings and Tyrants decree someone needs to be executed while they are driving around in a car or sleeping in their bed at night.

If they're on the battle field with a weapon, they're fighting a war and are military targets.  Otherwise, they're Americans who have been denied due process.  Innocent until proven guilty and all that... I like our rights as Americans.  Maybe you don't.

Oh hey!! I think the warrant-less wiretapping network just picked up on you telling your grandma you are "Shelving the bible on the second shelf".. apparently that's code for bombing the pentag0n.  You are now an enemy combatant.

Re:The Constitutional Question

[DaveV1.0]

Because intelligence on much bigger things such as invading another country for the bountiful supply of Weapons of Mass Destruction they had was excellent top notch intelligence. 1 million dead Iraqis later.. still looking for those weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, because mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Most of those "1 million dead Iraqis" were killed by... other Iraqis.

The President is not a King, nor a tyrant. Only Kings and Tyrants decree someone needs to be executed while they are driving around in a car or sleeping in their bed at night.

No, actually. In fact, it wasn't until executive order 11905 in the 1970s that political assassination was banned. Maybe you should wake up and smell the history. As far as those who are targeted by the drones, they are not poor little people who aren't doing anything. They aren't even political dissidents. They are violent, evil fucks who are engaged in waging war against the United States. If the United States decides to drop a bomb on them, well, that is what happens in war.

if they're on the battle field with a weapon, they're fighting a war and are military targets. Otherwise, they're Americans who have been denied due process. Innocent until proven guilty and all that... I like our rights as Americans. Maybe you don't.

No, as soon as the signed up with a group that declared war on America, they became the enemy, whether they are armed on the battlefield, or in a house asleep, or hiding a hole in the ground. You keep acting like they have been accused of a crime and will be going to trial. That is not what is happening here. They have taken up arms against the United States for a group that has declared war on the United States, that makes them enemy combatants regardless of whether they are in a trench with a gun or driving along a mountain pass in Pakistan.

Oh hey!! I think the warrant-less wiretapping network just picked up on you telling your grandma you are "Shelving the bible on the second shelf".. apparently that's code for bombing the pentag0n. You are now an enemy combatant.

A) My grandma is dead.
B) I don't believe in the bible or any religion.
C) Apparently, you are fucking asshole and if I could get my hands on you, I would beat you into a fucking bloody smear.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Belial6]

That is a very good point, and should be part of the question whether you agree with targeted killing or not.

Re:Really? Sniper

[DCFusor]

This is just a high tech sniper that uses larger bullets. The military has a love-hate relationship with snipers. They are very effective, but it's the not very subtle difference between killing (most likely thought of as self defense in a battle) and murder.

That commandment in the Bible, correctly translated says "do no murder" and doesn't mention killing -- else half or more of the old testament would be in self-conflict.

The thing is, guys who can look through a scope, see a face and then decide to "play god" and murder the target are considered kind of creepy to most normal folk. It's not like there is a shortage of them, one problem is finding one who is able, but not too gung ho and therefore completely dangerous to all.

In either case, you have a targeted murder, rather than a killing in the heat of battle, and I think that's the real issue. This is only a matter of scale -- the drone operator is in even less danger than a ground based sniper, but is a lot more "wholesale" if you get my drift -- those larger bullets do a lot more damage...and are a lot less accurate.

I have heard of cases where guys assigned the job of flying drones, who can even go home to the wife at lunchtime, cracking up (in the bad way) due to the realization that they are murdering people for a living from an air conditioned office in complete safety themselves (kind of like what some investment bankers do with far less remorse).

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

this seems to be about killing a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers

So the soldiers are standing around waiting for some nerd to show up with the drone and fly it over to the guy that's shooting at them?

Why not focus on ALL targeted killing?

Self defense is a right that's pretty well understood, even if the ACLU doesn't believe in it. Even the use of snipers in an armed conflict (eg hostage situation) is pretty well established. I suspect that the drones are being used for entirely different situations, like some guy walking out to pick up his newspaper.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are talking about killing a US Citizen based on what may be faulty information, without trial and denying them the right to even answer to the accusations. Is it based on real evidence that would hold up in a court of law? Or is it based on a report of some third world intelligence officer that may have conflicting interests?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman argument. You're inaccurately conflating multiple issues. Whether or not our wars in southwest Asia are valid is a seperate discussion, and the ACLU isn't talking about battlefield situations, which is what you've changed the subject to. The huge problems I see are that the US is assassinating people who are not in an active battle and even worse, that they are targeting US citizens who are not actively fighting. Our government has crossed a lot of lines over the past 10 years, this is yet another one where the Constitution and international law has been tossed out the window in the name of safety and security. By your logic, anyone who goes to a country where the US government has claimed there are terrorists is elligible for summary execution. And the US government is calling anyone who resists our occupation of their country a terrorist. So, if the US decides to invade France then any Frenchmen who resist are terrorists? And any Americans who go to France for any reason can be executed? Even American doctors who go to treat children injured in the fighting?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers

bullshit. read the news more, the people that are being targeted with drones are driving or in a house. they are not targeting active combatants with drones.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Cyberax]

"It's not about finding one on the street and saying he's a bad guy, kill him."

Uhm. It's exactly about it. You happen to work in Afghanistan and live near the local warlord?

Congratulations! You're now eligible as a target, even if you don't carry weapons.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the ACLU's beef seriously that it's not fair to be able to kill our enemies without giving them the chance to kill us?

That's generally the way it works. Soldiers who hide behind cowardly tactics or equipment (snipers, flamethrowers, paratroopers, etc) have, in the past, tended to have unfortunate accidents with bayonets between being captured and getting to a PoW camp.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

"As to killing US citizens, screw em. If they're innocent bystandars, they sure picked a fucked up place to bystand and should be nominated for a Darwin award. If they're not, then they were traitors and my only regret is that we can't bring them back and execute them several more times."

In case no one has yet informed you, YOU are psychotic.

If you had a fucking clue what the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are REALLY about, your tiny little mind would question
whether it's worth killing anyone at all, when OIL is why the US is there.

I bet you drive an SUV, don't you, you knee-jerk redneck moron ?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[joebagodonuts]

Part of being American is support of strange ideas like civil liberties. C'mon, you remember your civic lessons, don't you?

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Not just when it's easy. Not just taking the government's word for it. Oddly enough, I think this is a very American thing to do. What is objectionable about holding our political leadership accountable to the people?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[infinite9]

As far as I can tell, this seems to be about killing a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers

If this is on American soil, why are there American soldiers engaged in combat? Have we been invaded? Shouldn't it be the police? And if this isn't on American soil, how will they be able to tell it's an American citizen shooting at them until the battle is over?

oh, that's right, they're going to station a unit on American soil for crowd control.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The other reason to focus on drones, besides their novelty, is the fact that they are(notably unlike men with guns) commonly used on targets not immediately engaged in hostilities.

If somebody is actively involved in a firefight, this creates both a strong presumption of guilt and a strong practical difficultly in apprehension. Returning fire and killing them isn't ideal; but it is about as good as is practical. And, in such situations, I wouldn't see it as terribly relevant whether the shot is delivered by the forces on the ground, manned air support, or robotic air support.

However, one of the drone roles is the "We believe person X to be in building Y, not doing anything of note at present; but a known enemy on other occasions. Send a drone to blow up building Y." Here, there is none of the immediacy of the firefight scenario. In effect, a "trial" has occurred of citizen X, based on some sort of intelligence data, and now a sentence is being carried out. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where, by high quality intelligence or by luck, the judgement is correct; but a request for information on how these judgements are carried out seems neither unreasonable, nor equivalent to demanding that soldiers in active engagement undergo absurd risks to take their opponents into custody undamaged.

When drones are used for air support of an active operation, they are generally called that. "Targeted killing", at least historically, always refers to the execution, by military means, of somebody believed to be an enemy in the context of some sort of military conflict; but not immediately engaged in hostilities.

They are not Warriors

[BlackBloq]

Bunch of pussies shooting a $30000.00 bullet far away at some people, without accountability. No warriors, only point and click. Now you can be fat and not even be able to walk to kill. The civilian victims should start suing the government(s) responsible. They are wronged and this should clearly be illegal. I am very pro democracy and without accountability you are not in a real democracy. More like a republic led by pseudo dictators. I call them dictators because they say "national security" then they dictate what will happen, no debate, no constitution, no UN, no Geneva convention just... dictation.
I do hope all taliban/terrorists die, it just has to be done right or WE are the terrorists. They are hurting innocent people and to stop them from doing that we do the same? Strange world.

Re:They are not Warriors

[krou]

Exactly. The issue here is one of no consequences. A drone several thousand kilometres away in a foreign country kills a wedding party. Big deal. It happened in a virtual world with no smell or sound, probably hardly any visual impact either, just ants on a screen, everything controlled by joystick. The perpetrators weren't there, they didn't see it happen. The outcome was just to have the military go into damage control, claim terrorists were hiding among them, or they're terribly sorry. Zero consequences. It was just a video game. How else can it be tolerated that an estimated one in three people killed by drones in Pakistan are civilians? Fighting terror with terror, battling monsters and becoming a monster. Pointless bullshit.

Re:They are not Warriors

[jollyreaper]

Bunch of pussies shooting a $30000.00 bullet far away at some people, without accountability. No warriors, only point and click. Now you can be fat and not even be able to walk to kill. The civilian victims should start suing the government(s) responsible. They are wronged and this should clearly be illegal. I am very pro democracy and without accountability you are not in a real democracy. More like a republic led by pseudo dictators. I call them dictators because they say "national security" then they dictate what will happen, no debate, no constitution, no UN, no Geneva convention just... dictation.

There's the school of thought that says if you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong. Of course, the person who gets to choose whether or not to fight and has a chance to prepare for that fight is likely the aggressor performing the ambush.

The sin of our current policy isn't so much that our drone and bomber pilots are safe from retaliation while killing the enemy, it's that we're doing such a lazy job of finding out who the target is. We'd string our cops up by their nipples if they started firebombing crack houses at random just because they claimed to have good intelligence that there was a crime going on inside and yet there doesn't seem to be the same sense of outrage when a car full of civilians gets blown up because we misidentified it as being driven by Baddie al Badguy.

There's the separate argument of whether or not our military would be less prone to misbehavior if they were more vulnerable to retaliation. Even if that were incontrovertibly true, I'd have problems with sending our guys into a fight with a t-shirt and a baseball bat.

Re:They are not Warriors

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be tolerated because the terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. They kill civilians (with car bombs, mostly) and behead foreigners. This is not a reasonable enemy who will treat you well if you are captured. They won't let you negotiate. You can't educate terrorists or change their mind, as their war is an ideological one. The only way to fight them is to do it at their level: torture them when captured (Guantanamo) and, if they use civilians as human shields, bomb a few of them and send a clear message that this is not going to stop us.

The problem with this post is that it sounds as if we should just carpet bomb the whole region. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to the strict military effort, there should be an effort to actually bring the country out of its third-world status. But that's a rant for another post.

Re:They are not Warriors

[TheRaven64]

The perpetrators weren't there, they didn't see it happen

Actually, they do. Unlike missile attacks from jets, drones tend to stick around and see the results. If you kill a wedding party with a missile from a plane, you're flying at mach 2 or above and are a mile or so away by the time the missile hits. If you do the same thing with a drone, you may be in Arizona but you're watching the missile hit. The end result is that there are a lot more cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among drone pilots than amongst pilots of real aircraft.

Re:They are not Warriors

[krou]

Thanks for the info. I went and had a look around to read some more, and found this: http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news Still not sure that indicates that there are a lot more cases of PTSD, but still, thanks for the heads up.

Re:They are not Warriors

[KDR_11k]

Wait, they're shooting missiles at people and only one in three dead people is a civilian? I'd call that a pretty good rate considering those missiles have the potential to kill dozens of civilians each.

Anyway, death from far away isn't exactly a new concept. Artillery operators don't see their targets face to face, they get coordinates radioed in and fire shells on them. The difference is that artillery is less accurate and to kill one dude you'd probably level a whole city block. Still less collateral damage than carpet bombing though.

Re:They are not Warriors

[Anonymous Coward]

just an interesting point the air force members who are often piloting these drones have been shown to have a much higher rate of PTSD than normal members of the military

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

"I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen."

Yep. Sure do.

The problem starts when someone has said citizenship revoked by becoming an Enemy Combatant. Suddenly, the privileges applied and protections afforded national citizens...no longer apply.

This is the base of the entire issue of torturing terrorists... They are not recognized as citizens of any country and are thus without the protection of such things as the Geneva convention. By that agreement, we can legally do anything we want to them...as can any other country.

Is it right or ethical? Depends entirely on one's ethics and morals. Is it legal? Perfectly.

No SKYNET jokes?

[hoboroadie]

You must be new here.

Fighter Jocks

[airplaneit]

..... oh yeah.... because an F-16 can do so much better targeting people while wizzing past at 400 knots. I'd very much prefer the loitering capability of a UAV to check out who it's going to kill. The problem I have is when the computers themselves decide when to pull the trigger.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[AndersOSU]

does the ACLU have any problem with snipers?

Probably, but more relevant, the Justice department has a problem with snipers, as assassinations have been illegal by executive order since 1976.

And it's a good question how a drone is different. Before 9/11 we had an Afgan hit squad that was powerless to act because we had to have absurd contingency plans for how we would detain and extradite Osama if he somehow survived the capture attempt (which everyone knew wasn't going to happen). Then, as now, a drone strike would have been permissible and was even attempted several time.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[AndersOSU]

The ACLU isn't going to cry if we're killing enemy combatants. The ACLU just wants to know how you make it onto the list that makes you fair game for a military strike - something that seems like a reasonable request.

How is a government any better than the terrorists

[DaveV1.0]

Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists' political gain.
The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace. If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger, they would not have been around their families. However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[AlecC]

The reliability and selectivity of a weapons are a separate matter from whether its collateral damage is sufficiently small. There is no real difference in morality between a drone and a sniper bullet - if someone is a legitimate target, then either is legitimate. The difference is the collateral damage. By and large, the sniper bullet either kills the target or does not - and that is it. Whether the drone kills its target or not, it is likely to kill a large number, innocent or guilty, in the vicinity of the target.

The question should therefore not be about drones directly, but how the forces calculate the acceptable level of collateral damage incurred in attacking a particular target, and how they estimate the actual level incurred by particular attacks. There should be, at some level, a statement on the lines of "To kill an enemy commander of level X, we are prepared to accept Y civilian deaths" and another statement that "The proposed attack on commander A with weapon B will cause C civilian deaths". The attack can then proceed if C is less than or equal to Y. Of course, the terminology will be different, and no doubt highly obfuscated in military technology. And, of course, the numbers are very uncertain, so the precautionary principle says that the attack should not go ahead unless C us significantly less than Y.

If they don't have these rules, then they are essentially out of control - they are firing of lethal weaponry whose effects they cannot evaluate at targets whose worth they do not know - and should stop until they have such rules. If they do have such rules, there seems no reason why they should not publish the principles behind the rules. The don't have to publish the actual numeric estimates for particular weapons and targets, but they should publish the the way they reach those estimates. And if they are worried about the public backlash - they shouldn't be doing it.

Is there a difference...

[stewbacca]

...if an F-16 Pilot shoots his missiles at the target or if a UAV operator does the same? I guess if the ACLU wants to complain about the legality of the military killing people, then they need to extend their complaint to M-16s, F-16s and M-1 Tanks in addition to UAVs. I mean if you are dead, you are dead, right? Does it really matter how you got there?

Re:Is there a difference...

[hoboroadie]

Poor sportsmanship, I'd say, but I think that's what they said when the first artillery barrage came in.

Re:Is there a difference...

[Antiocheian]

Yes. The pilot is a human being and has the option to disobey if the order is botched or unconstitutional. A machine isn't.

Re:Is there a difference...

[stewbacca]

Wow, you really didn't read this thread, nor do you understand how a UAV works. The unmanned aerial vehicles are flown by enlisted guys sitting back in Arizona or California (or Dubai, or Qatar, place immaterial). They "fly" the planes via joystick and monitor. Humans tell the UAVs to turn around, fly higher, take a picture, launch a missle, etc. not the UAV its self.

Connection

[Camel Pilot]

Can someone help me out with the write-ups subject matter with the obscure tenious connection to "late modeled automobiles"

Re:Connection

[MRe_nl]

Toyota software i presume.

Re:Connection

[I'm not really here]

Toyota software code is causing cars to accelerate in spite of the human operator slamming on the brakes and not pressing the gas. If that is 'sophisticated, highly tested' software... then way too many non-combatants will be killed by these things.

This is, of course, assuming these things are 100% autonomous, which it appears they are not.

Two points missed

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in this article, the ACLU doesn't seem to state any position about whether these killings are just or not. The ACLU is requesting information in order to check whether the administration is violating international obligations and citizen interests. If citizens are indeed on a hit list without due process then it is a violation of their rights guaranteed under constitutional protections. Due to the broadness of the terms enemy combatant and terrorist as demonstrated in cases involving FBI/CIA wiretaps, it is troubling to consider that if citizens are targeted there is no due process. Although, one can make the argument that we are in a state of war and the ends justify the means, the precedent that it sets for the future is very troubling. History has shown that even when the best intended and defined policies are left open for interpretation they will be subjectively interpreted, often to the dismay of those they were said to protect.

From the article ignored by some critics here:

"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values"

"Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that U.S. citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones."

This is a lawsuit because of government denial for the request of information under the FOIA - seems like intelligence gathering but not necessarily for any action. Its funny how government peeps typically say if your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't be worried and have anything to hide - trippy how it never applies to them.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[DaTroof]

Yes, I imagine they have a problem with it. As far as I know, they've never tried to defend anyone's right to blow up a skyscraper full of people.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

And is controlling a UAV a cowardly tactic ?

define:treason

[Mekkah]

# a crime that undermines the offender's government
# disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
# treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

WTF are you guys talking about? Are we gonna fly drones around and toss nets on these guys or attack them like John Travolta in Battlefield Earth? Come on, be reasonable, it's fucking war, choose your side and die for it.

You really think these bastards who fight for Iraq expect to be flown back to the states, they are prepared to die for it or they are dumber than I could imagine.

Re:define:treason

[Locke2005]

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Let's stop pussy-footing around here!

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[stewbacca]

If Johnny Taliban leaves Ohio to go to Afghanistan and fight against US forces, I don't think our troops should have to determine the nationality of the people shooting at them before shooting back.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[MobyDisk]

This applies to snipers as well. Does the military ever use snipers against enemies who are not presently engaged in a firefight?

Let me know when you volunteer

[Anonymous Coward]

to be the one to arrest the people who are said to be bad.

Opinions from many here reflect a citizenry that has not been exposed to the reality of war.

How many body bags do you want coming back on the next flight? Oh, you don't care. Because you can sit back in the relative safety and comfort provided by those who do care and who have to make the decision (and then live with it) that protects you. It isn't much different than in previous wars when the soldier had to make the shoot or no shoot decision only in this case there are layers of people who must approve the decision. And those who will second guess.

Where is the anger against those who blow up non-combatants? Where is the anger against those who hide among innocents? Or who use religious institutions as shields?

Robust code

[inigopete]

...risks of human and machine error are obvious, and these likely increase as the robots become increasingly autonomous... This must give pause to anyone who's ever spent time coding or debugging or even driving certain willful late model automobiles

However, given that all military programming should conform to the Fully Formal MIL-STD-948 standard, it should be a good deal more robust than most civilian software.

Although, as you say, hardware issues and operator error are another matter...

Re:Patent Attorneys

[hoboroadie]

"Death ray, fiddlesticks! Why, it doesn't even slow them up!"

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the cops or military shoot FIRST? (As if that never happens, eh?) Perhaps that 'gun' in the person's hand was a gardening tool, but hey, oh well, he 'attacked' us, so we drilled him first.
(I seem to recall of wholesale slaughter of innocent, unarmed villagers (including many children) in 'Nam, for example...)

There are EXCELLENT reasons for the ACLU to be going after this issue.

This is an indeed very old problem:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, which is literally translated as, "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Sometimes rendered "who watches the watchmen?" the phrase has other idiomatic translations and adaptations.

It's very interesting to find out who is protecting soldiers and policemen from being held accountable for their actions. BOTH parties, BOTH sides need to be protected, held accountable, etc.
THAT and only that, will ensure anything remotely resembling a fair, just action.

Or are you just going to lie down and be tazered/shot/imprisoned, just because someone with a badge has a bad day, doesn't like your accent/race/language/culture/religion/politics? You'd love China, or say, North Korea...go visit and find out why unlimited police/military power is generally a very, very bad thing (oh, heck, just take a look at WWII, for Pete's sake...) Those who do not study history are indeed doomed to repeat it...seems North America is becoming more and more fascist by the day...

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[NotBornYesterday]

criminal prosecutions

The problem here is that we aren't dealing with purely criminal matters. We're dealing with combat, which is martial rather than criminal. If an American is in the camp of our enemies, and is wilfully engaged in combat against the US, or the support of those who do, they shouldn't expect to be treated as a mere criminal.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[scorp1us]

That may seem ok, but consider this:

Few trespasses and usurpations are as flagrant as this. Watch this one carefully.

McCain is now broadening the term of "enemy combatant" to "enemy belligerent" which includes U.S. Citizens. Legally speaking, they couldn't be father a part right now, but due to a phonetic relationship, the two are being bridged. Right now I am a citizen and cannot be held indefinitely. I have a right to speedy a trial. But if the government chooses to label me as a "enemy belligerent" I can be held indefinitely and subject to torture.

"An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
  law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities."

"(B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or 3 its coalition partners"

I can't see how much farther this erosion of rights can go. When you couple the discussed bombing, with the idea that any

There is no legal authority here!

[InsaneProcessor]

What legal basis? This is war. The Geneva Convention doesn't even apply since this is not a war against a country. It doesn't matter how we get them. It only matters that we obliterate them before they obliterate us. We just use the rules they chose to set. They must loose.

Re:There is no legal authority here!

[tylersoze]

I hope you're being sarcastic since your sig seems to suggest that you might not be an idiot. If not, then here's my rant. :)

How exactly are those bunch of idiots going to "obliterate" us exactly? Fly a plane into a building and kill a couple thousand people? I don't exactly see us being invaded by Al Qaeda anytime soon, ala Red Dawn.

What actual real lasting effect did that have on our country beyond the self imposed insanity we unleashed as a result of that? Destruction of our civil liberties? Ruining our economy with a completely pointless and meaningless war that killed thousands of innocent people and incited even more hatred against the US? We did all that to ourselves. When are you people going to understand the best revenge is living well? Let those fucking morons live in a cave somewhere in Pakistan with their backward fucking medieval ideas and try to hurt us with their pinprick terrorist attacks.

Re:There is no legal authority here!

[twoallbeefpatties]

This is war! So we have to do everything we can! But it's not a war! So we can do anything we want to! ...What?

Re:How is a government any better than the terrori

[Capt_Morgan]

Yes and the world is black and white and it's very easy to tell good guys from bad guys. For some reason it's hard to see my govt as the "good guys" now that I've found they tortured innocent people at Gitmo

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[kismet666]

And you have 100% confidence in your government's ability to accurately idenfity these combatants? Ever dealt with an IRS audit? The IRS is 100% correct too, right?

Skynet...

[bluie-]

...is no joke.

The Source of the Confusion

[Fnord666]

The basic problem is that the ACLU is applying rules and regulations regarding civil society to an area where an armed conflict is occuring. These are two entirely different things governed by two entirely different sets of laws, rules and regulations. If an individual dons the uniform of an enemy force and takes up arms then he is an enemy combatant and is a perfectly legitimate target according to the Laws of Armed Conflict regardless of his citizenship. He may be lawful combatant if the enemy force has willingly allowed him to join and they are commanding his actions, or he may be an unlawful combatant, but he is still a combatant.

Re:How is a government any better than the terrori

[DaveV1.0]

So, you wouldn't care if you were a citizen of the United States or a subject of Taliban/Al Qeda rule, right?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Unequivocal]

If I recall correctly, that image was cherry picked and the laser guided bombs of the early 90's (assuming you're talking about Gulf War I) were found not to be as sure-fire accurate as was originally claimed (by Cheney I think - he was Secty Defense at the time right?).

GWII used significantly improved ordinance and things have only gotten more accurate since then, at least as best as I can understand all this.

But that is what soldiers do

[SmallFurryCreature]

Have we become so distanced from the reality of war that we forgotten that the army aims to kill people?

You aim, you fire, you kill.

That is why we got the police patrolling the streets and not the army. And that is why the army is not allowed out of the barracks except with extreme orders.

The summary misses a vital point

[guspasho]

It's very important to note these drone assassination missions aren't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield, they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible. The only apparent restriction is that they aren't being used to target people within US borders. Yet.

And as I've seen in one comment already, it is very important to note that just because the government accuses someone of something doesn't mean it's true. This is why we used to have a court system.

Re:How is a government any better than the terrori

[misexistentialist]

However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.

Considering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one, which would be more sociopathic. Also it's not clear who the women and children are who are killed in these attacks are. Terrorists presumably don't own houses, so they probably just show up at a friend of a friend's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family doesn't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives.

No Skynet jokes???

[FatdogHaiku]

Who are you, and how did you get on /.?

We've seen how well that works

[Shivetya]

like the FBI and Secret Service.

I wonder who has the bigger body count of American citizens.

Well what do ya know...

[Orleron]

The Al Caida Civil Liberties Union strikes again.

robo-killer-bots

[johnrpenner]

walk anywhere on earthy - and if you're not a good consumer,
the drones will come down and hunt you like in THX-1138..
or like the robo-hover-bots in star wars..

you can run, but you cant hide.. lasers coming down from heaven to zap you...

this story is thousands of years old..

| Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.
| He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.
| He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf,
| and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast,
| whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and
| miraculous signs, even CAUSING FIRE TO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH
| in full view of men. (Revelation 13:11-13)

Re:How is a government any better than the terrori

[DaveV1.0]

onsidering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one

That is a false statement. One way for one of these terrorists to protect his family would be not to live or visit them.

Terrorists presumably don't own houses

No. In fact, many terrorists have families and own houses. That is why we often hear of strikes on terrorists at their homes. Please explain why you would presume that terrorists would not have homes.

they probably just show up at a friend of a friend's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family doesn't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives.

So, what you are saying is that some guy shows up on someone's door step and says "Hi, I am a friend of your friend Ahkmed. He said I could stay with you tonight." and said someone says "OK armed stranger I have never met before. Please come in to my home with my family and children."?

Not This Time!

[b4upoo]

Although I usually like causes taken up by the ACLU this cause sounds really dumb. Weapons of war always take innocents along with combatants. Make no mistake there were nursing homes and kindergartens at Hiroshima and just about every other city that we have bombed in our various wars.
            The real question is whether drones will kill of unusual numbers of innocents compared to other weapons of war. I suspect that drones are part of the notion of kinder and gentler warfare.
              As to targeting American citizens in war zones, well sure, if they are aiding the enemy then they are fair game.
              And keep in mind that using drones keeps our own soldiers and airmen out of harms way. If we are lucky we may be able to create an entirely robotic military in the future.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Shotgun]

If they do have such rules, there seems no reason why they should not publish the principles behind the rules.

The rules exist, enforced by a news media that is all to ready to expose any mistakes to a queasy populace, but the commanders would be a fool to make such a statement. If you get in a fist fight, you don't tell your opponent that you will stop beating his face once he passes out. I do hope you have enough compassion to do so, but it is not the time or place to be publicizing such sentiments.

No, the commanders stance MUST be that we will chase our enemies to the gates of hell and put a bullet through the head of everyone there if it takes that to drag them back to our torture chambers where we will disembowel them in front of their infant children unless they lay down their weapons and surrender.

Once they stop fighting, then we can get serious and talk to them about how we can help them build roads, schools, and other infrastructure.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys who push the button are often working in Las Vegas at the time. I don't know whether that means they have different rules than soliders who are in the same country as the people they are shooting.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Shotgun]

And how often, in previous wars, was a building bombed because it was suspected that some officials might be meeting there?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[jc42]

I seem to recall something about having a right to a fair trial if I'm a US citizen.

You should probably reread the Constitution. As many lawyers have pointed out, the passage guaranteeing "due process" makes no mention of citizenship. And historians have pointed out that the various denials of due process in US history have generally targeted primarily US citizens. Thus, when Lincoln abrogated the Constitutional protections, he did so almost entirely to imprison people who were still legally citizens, since the US government didn't recognize their states' succession. Similarly, the WWII denials of due process in the Internments resulted in imprisoning people who were almost all citizens.

It's an old story. Such things are justified as being against "foreign enemies", but the actual targets and victims usually turn out to be mostly the country's own citizens.

Whether this will happen this time around, we can't really say. But history says we should be very suspicious of how our rulers intend to use such things.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[tomthepom]

One reason is that as a method of assassination drones are hugely indiscriminate, averaging about 50 non-combatant casualties for each targeted individual. This number of civilian deaths raises all kinds of legal, ethical and tactical questions.

That's fine

[Fujisawa Sensei]

That's fine, we don't have to use the drones for precision attacks, we can keep them in a surveillance only role.

We can just go back to daisy cutters and carpet bombing once the target has been spotted.

WTF?

[commodoresloat]

it isn't the fault of the US government and military if the people we are attacking don't have any air defense systems.

Stop hitting my fist with your face, nerd!

Re:WTF?

[Wyatt Earp]

Seriously. The people being targeted by this as combatants in war zones or lawless "tribal areas".

The US DoD and CIA put aircraft up in orbit there, they get intelligence over weeks from these aircraft and finally after multi-step and multi-agency protocols they get the green light to drop a JDAM or fire a Hellfire at someone. Its not a "summary execution", the people being targeted have ample opportunity to quit the area, quit being a hostile and if they are hell bent on taking this course of action, get some damned air defense and shoot down a UAV or two. They've been shot down in the past.

Re:WTF?

[stewbacca]

Excellent post. It goes to show that people who know what they are talking about --people like you who don't mix up the FBI and CIA's respective roles-- well, know what they are talking about. Hint: if any post in here reads something like, "the FBI is off killing people in foreign countries", the poster knows nothing and should be ignored.

Re:WTF?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The US DoD and CIA put aircraft up in orbit there, they get intelligence over weeks from these aircraft and finally after multi-step and multi-agency protocols they get the green light to drop a JDAM or fire a Hellfire at someone.

Yeah, and these protocols need to be subject to extreme scrutiny.
Which is the point of the FOIA filing.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[DM9290]

they pick drones because someone shooting at a drone is actively involved in an act of VANDALISM and nothing more.
drones have no right to self defense.

this is simple

[commodoresloat]

Look, during hostilities, people get killed. That's what happens. US citizen or not, if they are on the battlefield fighting American troops they will get shot at. But if they are hanging out at the Taliban Tavern drinking a pint of Osama bin Lager with their mates, possibly planning the next 9/11 attack, killing them then is a summary execution rather than an act of war. I think the ACLU has a point that we should investigate, arrest and try them rather than summarily executing them.

post-9/11?

[commodoresloat]

The crusades actually began on 27 November 1095. So get with it, Liberals; we live in a post-11/27/1095 world here!!!

Anyone targeted and killing on USA ground?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone targeted and killed on USA ground? Last time I checked, when something happens in a different country, USA laws don't apply. When we are at war, killing is part of it.

I suppose the pacifist at the ACLU would have sued the men manning missile silos if they'd ever pressed the button and a launch happened too.

War is ugly and nasty. The idea of a limited war has never worked. Kill them all and anyone nearby. We need to be scarier than they are if we hope to win. I don't really care if we "win", but I want to make it clear that terrorist acts are not tolerated and you cannot hide anywhere. Whatever is needed to get that across is what we need to do.

chill out Jack Nicholson

[commodoresloat]

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

I think I remember

[zogger]

An Addam's cartoon with the mad inventor in the patent attorney office, the attorney leaning out the window with the death ray blaster.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[umghhh]

A responsible citizen of any given country can be expected to avoid place where military of this country wedges a war. I can sympathize with US citizens in their quest for freedom and fair treatment that they obviously do not have (well come to think of it I am in no better situation either) but what you want is that US military knows about location of all US citizens abroad which besides being difficult to do is bound to take more rights from you too. It is the war so if you socialize with the guys that on occasion shoot your soldiers then you are taking risks. I do not claim that there is a just cause to exercise in Afghanistan but I say that if you play with fire it is likely you burn your fingers and you should stop blaming others for what can happen.

That's not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the ACLU is really concerned with the whole "Identify, seek out, hunt down, and kill US Citizens who are outside the country without charges or a a trial" part.

Forget drones. If it were sniper teams whacking a US citizen on his way to work (in whatever country) it would be just as much of an issue.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[gknoy]

why the focus on drones? Why not focus on ALL targeted killing? They pick drones, because it's new and scary (They can rally support through sensationalism). Not because it's radically changed the way the military has operated (in terms of who to kill, not in strategy).

Drones radically change the way we can conduct intelligence operations. Being able to keep a week-long surveillance on targets (with shifts of operators) allows collection of much more detailed information than if we had humans on-site, and with nearly no risk. It also makes it easier to conduct said operations than if we have to deploy a sniper team or commando squad.

Because it's so much easier and safer to do, there's a risk that it could be done frivolously. When you have to risk men's lives to kill someone, one generally makes sure that it's worth the risk. When you're pressing a button on a joystick, and not even risking your airborne asset (or, not risking human assets), it gets potentially much more tempting to say "oops!" after the fact.

I'm not sure how using drones to do killing is much different from using some F-15s that fly over the target, though, aside from being less vulnerable to detection by ground forces. At this point, from what I've read, the drones are being used to provide mountains of intelligence and evidence (e.g., "We saw this guy plant a dozen IEDs in the road, and have had him on video and thermal observation ever since.") that can be used to justify operations (or make them happen more safely for us), which I heartily approve of.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

You know, I really fucking hate it when people try and put words in my mouth. I never once said the word terrorist. Never mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or any other nation we've conducted operations in. I said nothing whatsoever about justification for any of the conflicts, yet you seem to want to argue about that. Fuck off. Find someone who's already talking about those to argue with.

I define a battlefield as any place where one side of a conflict decides to attack another. If you know that where folks we are trying to kill hang out can become a battlefield at any time, it's pretty fucking stupid to be in those areas, yeah? If you get blown up accidentally while doing humanitarian work, well you knew the risks when you went there. If you went there to aid the enemy, well you got what you deserved.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

That or a smart one, depends on which side you're on as to which way your opinion is going to tend towards.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Also taken badly out of context. Those words were written right before we performed a hell of a lot of killing, so either you completely failed to understand who was being spoken to and why or you just want to argue for your point and don't give a damn if your underlying reasons are remotely relevant.

This is your sig:

[twoallbeefpatties]

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

You fear a government that provides additional social services, but you think a government that can kill anyone they want to as long as its on foreign soil and not have to tell anyone about it should just be given the benefit of the doubt?

The FBI to paradrop into Afghanistan, slap the cuffs on them and read them their Miranda rights?

Many of these people are being killed in Pakistan. Y'know, a country we are not currently at war with. How about if we follow Pakistani law in those situations? Would it be okay if we sent predator drones over the Mexican border to kill drug lords without telling anyone about it? Are there other countries we can secretly send robotic assassins into?

Why should government be inherently scorned for its domestic policies and inherently trustworthy when dealing with the situation of assassinations?

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Seems like it, yeah, but the ACLU rarely does anything for the reasons they give publicly. Follow their record and it's easy to see they've devolved into just another radical leftist organization. This case in particular is easily identifiable as a fishing expedition. I don't particularly mind them trying to fish for information, free country and all that, but calling it something other than what it is annoys the hell out of me.

Even better...

[twoallbeefpatties]

It'll be amusing to see how the "rule of law" crowd justifies foreign assassinations of people currently sitting in private homes (read: not on a battlefield) in countries that we are not currently at war with (read: Pakistan) as being somehow in line with our code of military law.

Oddly enough, I would imagine that people who believe that captured enemies should be treated responsibly as due the Geneva Convention would also believe that there should be a line of accountability and transparency when the government decides to remotely kill someone not currently engaged in battle.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[shutdown -p now]

This is the base of the entire issue of torturing terrorists... They are not recognized as citizens of any country and are thus without the protection of such things as the Geneva convention.

They don't lose their Geneva protections because theyre not "citizens of any country". Geneva equally applies to militia groups not associated with a particular state or government.

The reason why they lose their protections is because 1) they don't wear uniform, or other clearly identifiable sign that indicates their allegiance on the battlefield, and/or 2) they target civilians, violating the laws of war - and thus can be targeted in return in reprisal.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[AndersOSU]

What do you think the sinister ulterior motive is?

FTFA:

In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings...The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far

Sounds like they're coming out and saying what they want to know. And the left hardly has a monopoly on sanitized public statements. Remember, not only to we know Iraq has WMDs, but also, the United States does not torture.

All's Fair....

[inerlogic]

...In Love and War.

"legal basis for use of the drones"

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Rich0]

I do see the validity in having some debate over this issue, but this is something I'm torn on.

In WWII it was completely acceptable to bomb Tokyo every night or whatever.

Suppose a sniper could have gotten in and assassinated a few key politicians who were leading the war, leaving more peaceful elements of government intact. Would that be immoral?

For that matter, was it wrong to intentionally target a flight of aircraft that was transporting Yamamoto? He wasn't at that moment leading any particular military activity. He was just a key person of strategic value to the enemy.

In the Iraq war, is it wrong to carpet-bomb 47 bunkers known to be sometimes inhabited by Sadam, killing thousands of soldiers? Is it more wrong to instead just have somebody with a rifle shoot him, killing one person but likely accomplishing most of the political goals of the war?

If you have a beef with some terrorist leader, why is it necessary to mow down his cannon fodder before taking him out?

At the same time I do appreciate the problems inherent in essentially trying these people in absentia.

How about this - when you think that John Smith is a terrorist agent, you post an indictment in a few major newspapers, broadcast it on the radio, and post it on a website. Then John Smith can report to the nearest embassy or whatever and get a fair trial. If John Smith doesn't show up then you capture or kill him in whatever way is necessary.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. This is a FOIA request, not an allegation that the military is doing anything wrong. Of course people are concerned that the military, or really more likely the CIA, is doing something wrong, but asking for oversight isn't an accusation per se. Also I seriously doubt that they really are going to look into attacks that come from battlefield intelligence. Instead I suspect what they are looking for is names that seem to come up on kill lists for no known reason (for example CIA asked someone a favor.)

The best way to review these tapes and general military conduct may not be the public, we don't want the military endlessly second guessing themselves. However, at the end of the day, don't you want the ability for a truly independent group or the public to review our governments actions. Or at least request and be granted oversight/investigation by another branch of government as opposed to the guy's immediate superior who probably gave the orders in the first place (checks and balances)?

The Gov't shouldn't say jack

[Anonymous Coward]

Their respons to the ACLU should be "kiss our ass"

Amazing...

[VTEX]

It always amazes me how much people take their civil liberties for granted.

Instead of RTFA, a number of Slashdotters went off on tirades against the ACLU, an organization with the sole purpose of protecting your rights as an American citizen. The ACLU has sued to seek the legal justification of using drones, to find out what the limits are, and who has the authorization to use drones. They have not sued to stop it's practice.

Even in war, there are laws that govern the U.S. Military and it's personnel. A soldier cannot just go and randomly kill people, just because they are in hostile territory. Soldiers must follow orders by someone who has the legal authority to order an attack or strike.

This lawsuit aims to clarify who has legal authority to use drones and how they can be used, not only to insure the drones are being used properly, but also to protect the rights of the personnel who use them.

Re:Pulitzer Vietnam photo

[MacAndrew]

It's an interesting story -- the guy who shot the detainee in the head actually was a South Vietnamese police captain acting on his own initiative. It was of course one of the most controversial images of the war, so it's hard to say that there was any consensus here that it was appropriate.

One account:

SAIGON, South Vietnam -- South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Viet Cong officer with a shot to the head, one of the most chilling images of the Vietnam War. Photographer Eddie Adams, who won a Pulitzer Prize for this photograph, said the execution was justified, because the Viet Cong officer had killed eight South Vietnamese. The furor created by this 1968 image destroyed Loan's life. He fled South Vietnam in 1975, the year the communists overran the country, and moved to Virginia, where he opened a restaurant. He died in 1998 at age 67. Loan 'was a hero,' Adams said when he died. 'America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.'

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I didn't say it was sinister, no more than politics as usual is anyway. And yeah, they're saying what they want to know but the why they'd never say openly and truthfully. That's my only real objection, being lied to yet again.

The ACLU might have been an altruistic, fight-the-good-fight organization at one time but nowadays they're just another part of the political machine of the far left. They have far more in common ideologically with anarchists and socialists (contradictory, I know, but that's people for you) than with your average Democrat voter.

Missed Opportunity

[TomRC]

I am not weighing in on either the pro- or anti- "killing from drones" question.

But I would like to point out that drones create an opportunity that is perhaps in a blindspot for many in and out of the military.

When a soldier goes into a firefight, why must he shoot to kill? Because the other side is shooting to kill him. A remote controlled drone breaks that model. The enemy cannot kill the drone operator, they can only damage the drone - a matter of expense rather than life or death.

In the sort of "war" we're now in, with enemies who hide amongst their own families and neighbors, the chances are very high that you create one new enemy for every enemy you kill, and several for every civilian. So with drones, the military value equation is strongly tipped toward NOT killing, if you can achieve your objective in other ways.

Instead of blowing up that car full of insurgent leaders, disable it in the middle of the desert by blowing a hole through the engine block. Develop knock-out gas bombs, or a fragmentation bomb that injects tiny frozen pellets of a knock out drug. THEN send in your troops, or even a drone "paddy wagon". Taze that guy who MAY have a gun, then have the drone roll over and inject him with a sedative.

Yeah, I know, it sounds all "liberal, peace-nik, kumbaya-ish". But if it does a better job than bullets and bombs, without risking your soldiers - why not? You can always follow up with lethal force if it doesn't work.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

You're a funny guy, AC. Keep on sucking up that Berkeley propaganda so I can keep being amused.

Oil? You're still seriously believing that noise? Do you even remotely understand how oil markets work? We could be completely cut off of oil from Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia and still get every drop we need. Prices wouldn't even fluctuate that much. Twit.

Psychotic? Nah, that's simply how most people tend to react to treachery. There's a reason it's the only crime spelled out in the Constitution and the death penalty is explicitly allowed therein.

Seriously, go back to the Huffington Post or moveon. Over here at /. you have to be able to think for yourself if you don't want your ass kicked in a flamewar.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually, the airplane likely has BETTER accuracy, in terms of munitions placement (Into a window at five miles is better than into a head head at 500 yards). The problem is that the munitions have a large radius of destruction.

How to make friends & influence people

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread shits me to tears. All the seems to be concerning people here is the execution of US citizens while on foreign soil. Here's a hint for you all: there's nothing inherintly special about being a US citizen. The life of the mothers & children killed by your forces, that you don't even think worth keeping an account of, is worth protecting every bit as much - and often they are victims of these wack jobs running their country/state/city/shithole more that you ever will be.

Quite frankly it's this fucking racist, one rule for other nationals, we do whatever the hell we want and fuck the law attitude that completely erased any sympathy we had for you after 911. Fucking wake up! But for the fact of the geography of where you were born it would be you and your family being killed & not even worth keeping track of.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I suspect that nobody at the ACLU would be blind to your ethical hypotheticals(they are hardly idiots, whether or not one likes what they do), I suspect that their concern is largely a due process one, which short-circuits many of them.

For better or for worse the issue of uniformed enemy soldiers during wartime is largely settled. As long as you don't violate the conventions on chemical and biological weapons, or use nukes and escalate things, you are pretty much in the clear. As much as the ethics are dodgy as hell(even the evilest of regimes typically ends up fielding an army mostly made of of idealistic kids and/or conscripts), it isn't really a burning legal question, you can pretty much use any force that isn't chemical, biological, or nuclear(with land mines and incendiaries having an awful PR problem; but still being mostly legal), unless you've captured some, in which case humane treatment is obligatory.

Where things get considerably less clear is irregular combatants, or those suspected of being such. Recent American state policy(Bush was upfront about it; but Obama has largely followed suit, just slightly more eloquently) is that "illegal enemy combatants" basically get the worst of both worlds. They aren't soldiers, so Geneva doesn't apply; but they aren't common criminals, so due process doesn't apply. The ACLU, unsurprisingly, begs to differ. They reject entirely the idea that some sort of shadow category, with the protections of neither criminals nor soldiers and the hazards of both, can exist.

Particularly when the conflict is spilling over into areas where there is no declared ware(eg. Pakistan), targeted killings in general(and of citizens even more so), are pretty arguably a due process question. While the rules, quite arguably, suck, the standards for uniformed combatants during declared wars are legally reasonably clear. Having the military or CIA(or even their contractors who aren't even formally state personnel) simply killing people, including Americans, on the basis of secret evidence, secret process, on soil where no war has been declared, is a serious due process problem.

In point of fact, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if a lot, though not all, of the IDs of American suspects are right(heck, they are probably more accurate than our IDs of suspects among the local population, since any American in the area is, more or less necessarily, strongly motivated by something to make the trip, while a lot of the locals just had the misfortune to be born there); but that doesn't really address the fact that the state is, in effect, claiming the right to kill with impunity based on secret process and evidence, without any of the historical war-based justifications. Even if you are 100% sure that the people involved are just noble upstanding patriots who would never abuse the power, that precedent should unnerve you.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[chihowa]

This applies to snipers as well. Does the military ever use snipers against enemies who are not presently engaged in a firefight?

...who are known to be US citizens (which is what the case is about).

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Those rights have nothing to do with citizenship.

Bear in mind that the word "citizen" doesn't occur once within the Bill of Rights, and the term wasn't even defined when it was written. It took another 90 years and a civil war to add it to the constitution.

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's obvious. Non-citizens in the US (or any country) generally still have to follow the local laws, and have to deal with the same penalties if they break them. Likewise, any rights you have as a US citizen are not valid when in another country. If you are in Iraq and they want to do whatever... they can. You're in their jurisdiction. If you start saying "But I have a right to a trial.", they will probably laugh that much harder.

Well...

[Etriaph]

I'm not a US citizen, but I'm pretty certain that Posse Comitatus is violated by such actions on behalf of your government.

Just checking...

[randyleepublic]

Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of targeting US citizens, we all understand why the members of the Taliban are legitmate targets, right? I mean look, they nearly eradicated the heroin trade in Afganistan. NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE BUSINESS! Bada bing!

living in us and

[Anonymous Coward]

using drones is cowardly, and can easily miss and kill innocents. some american indiginous would only kill a man after they actually touched them. how many americans are willing to die for this cause we are fighting for?

"...one in three people..."

[drkim]

While it is tragic that "...one in three people..." killed are civilian (if true) - the fault does not rest with American military.

The fault rests with terrorists who:
1. Dress like civilians; not in uniform.
2. Mingle and hide with civilians, in mosques, hospitals, schools; not on military compounds.

They are the ones placing the civilian populace at risk.

You can't execute people sumarily.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the UN's international convention of human rights, which forbids many things that Bush and his cronnies found obnoxiously obtrusive.

Of course you remember!

[hoboroadie]

It's a classic. I googled it to try and get the punctuation correct, and found it quite well ref'd on the web. I always thought that one summed up the corporate approach to morality. Not "Is it a good thing", but "Will it make money".

WTF...

[Anonymous Coward]

... .. does the AMERICAN Civil Liberties' Union have to do with foreigners and/or their removal? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler? Beuler?

One has to wonder whom put the ACLU up to this sort of mischief, as normally, they seem to be quite responsible in restricting themselves to domestic matters... for good or ill.

(FAGASS CAPTCHA SHIT!)

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[joebagodonuts]

Completely in context for my point. I was addressing the second portion of your post, not the first. I just did a poor job of communicating it.

I'm not opposed to waging war. In 1776, the decision was made soberly, after much reflection. The people making that decision also had their lives on the line, too. Even though killing was involved, it honored that "inalienable right to life".

Contrast THAT to the situation that the ACLU wants information on today. Foreign land. Remote operation of weapons. Much less personal. Our recent-past experiences give us reason to think that there may be abuses, especially where contractors are concerned.

I want us to still honor that inalienable right. That means waging war properly. We have teh ability and obligation to do what we can to make sure we're choosing legitimate targets using properly trained, supervised resources. That supervision can (should?) involve disclosure

The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU MUST BE removed from the face of the earth!!! They MUST BE STOPPED!!!

Dear Lord, remove the ACLU, and the democrats from teh face of the earth!

Re:The Reliably obtuse ACLU

[The Mighty Buzzard]

That supervision can (should?) involve disclosure

Not to civilians it shouldn't. At least not without being either not remotely timely or heavily redacted.