US is using drones to executed Americans

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by foodcritic

i would call killing/planning us soldiers overt. imo

In theory I agree. Again no one has answered how they proceed. So a terror cell in a building full of known terrorists plotting and planning (assuming accurate intell) is completely a safe house. There may be a US citizen in the mix and therefore as to not violate his constitutional rights we simply sit on our hands. Nonsense. Let me ask you. Have we had US citizens (some innocent) in other countries that we were at war with. Italy, Germany or Japan just to name a few. Were any killed by our soldiers r bombs? I would think the answer is yes.

Not just any overt acts, these particular ones

1. Bring your U.S. passport and proof of residency or proof of intent to enter the United States as an alien to the embassy or consulate for your appointment or during walk-in business hours. Inform them of your intention to renounce your citizenship so an appropriate officer can assist you.
2. Sign a renunciation oath in front of a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer. By signing the oath, you acknowledge that you are relinquishing any and all rights granted to a U.S. citizen and that this act cannot be reversed.
3. Surrender your U.S. passport to the consular or diplomatic officer for cancellation. By renouncing your citizenship, you will not be entitled to travel internationally under a U.S. passport.
4. Wait for the U.S. Department of State's decision to honor or reject your renunciation request. If your request is approved, you will receive a certificate of nationality loss from the U.S. government. Your citizenship is not legally renounced until you receive this certificate.

So a terror cell in a building full of known terrorists plotting and planning (assuming accurate intell) is completely a safe house. There may be a US citizen in the mix and therefore as to not violate his constitutional rights we simply sit on our hands.

in this you're mixing apples and oranges, there's a huge difference between having an incidental US citizen's death and intentionally targeting one.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by foodcritic

So kill the second in charge in the hut who is not a citizen and call the dead US traitor collateral. Case closed.

BUT again, this isn't what happened..


We targeted a US citizen individually and apart from others.. and in doing so killed him and his 16 year old son...

Now if we had known there was a meeting of the minds and we wanted to take out the top three tiers of Al Queda and he happened to be there, Oh Well.. BUT that's not what happened.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by itsbob

BUT again, this isn't what happened..


We targeted a US citizen individually and apart from others.. and in doing so killed him and his 16 year old son...

Now if we had known there was a meeting of the minds and we wanted to take out the top three tires of Al Queda and he happened to be there, Oh Well.. BUT that's not what happened.

It should also be known that his son wasn't killed at the same time. I believe it happened a week or two later.

[Makavide]

one could agrue that this was a military action - and that the military, taking consideration of their oath to defend the consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, were clearly inside the bounds of that oath. They took out an enemy combatant, in a foreign land, where they are allowed to operate. He may have been an american citizen (domestic) but deemed an enemy combatant.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by Makavide

one could agrue that this was a military action - and that the military, taking consideration of their oath to defend the consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, were clearly inside the bounds of that oath. They took out an enemy combatant, in a foreign land, where they are allowed to operate. He may have been an american citizen (domestic) but deemed an enemy combatant.

I admit, I don't know much about Anwar, but what did he do to become an enemy combatant?

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by Makavide

one could agrue that this was a military action - and that the military, taking consideration of their oath to defend the consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, were clearly inside the bounds of that oath. They took out an enemy combatant, in a foreign land, where they are allowed to operate. He may have been an american citizen (domestic) but deemed an enemy combatant.

Nobody in the military ordered his execution, they obeyed (what they thought was) a legal order to kill an American Citizen.

I doubt the person that pushed the button knew if his target was or was not an American Citizen, I would assume all he knew is had a target at location 'x' and the powers that be wanted 'y' type of armament fired on location 'x'

[Makavide]

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.