Slashdot Mirror
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."
The defense's response was merely a motion for discovery of the plaintiff's latitude and longitude.
My work here is dung.
The ACLU needs to recruit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nick Stahl for this one.
A country that makes a promo video like this probably doesnt care much about killing persons here and there.
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.
Well then, lets have some untargeted killing then. Thats much better for everyone.
"His name was James Damore."
Does the ACLU have any problem with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers with 3000 people in them, or is that OK?
The DoD won't give up an operational details that they've not already given to the press.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Im a troll because I disagree with you.
Someone always has to ruin the fun :(
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...
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.
How the hell is criticism of the ACLU off-topic in a discussion about the ACLU?
Get a clue mods.
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.
Banu
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.
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?
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!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
http://xkcd.com/652/
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
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.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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?
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).
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
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.
You must be new here.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
..... 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.
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
...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?
Can someone help me out with the write-ups subject matter with the obscure tenious connection to "late modeled automobiles"
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.
# 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.
~Mekkah
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?
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...
"Death ray, fiddlesticks! Why, it doesn't even slow them up!"
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
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.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
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
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
...is no joke.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
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.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
So, you wouldn't care if you were a citizen of the United States or a subject of Taliban/Al Qeda rule, right?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
Who are you, and how did you get on /.?
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
like the FBI and Secret Service.
I wonder who has the bigger body count of American citizens.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The Al Caida Civil Liberties Union strikes again.
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)
That is a false statement. One way for one of these terrorists to protect his family would be not to live or visit them.
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.
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."?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
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.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
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!
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.
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 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.
"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!"
An Addam's cartoon with the mad inventor in the patent attorney office, the attorney leaning out the window with the death ray blaster.
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.
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?
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
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.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
...In Love and War.
"legal basis for use of the drones"
Their respons to the ACLU should be "kiss our ass"
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.
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:
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.
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.
I'm not a US citizen, but I'm pretty certain that Posse Comitatus is violated by such actions on behalf of your government.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
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!
Social Credit would solve everything...
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?
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.
There is the UN's international convention of human rights, which forbids many things that Bush and his cronnies found obnoxiously obtrusive.
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".
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
... .. 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!)
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!