Here’s more awesome news from “the most transparent administration ever”.
Even though I agree that the individuals in this case posed a danger to the US, I think it is disturbing when an American citizen is killed by their government without getting a day in court.
I long for the days when Democrats pretended to care about this stuff.
Great. Your Due Process rights now expire the moment you step over the border, and the goverment can have you killed without having to justify its actions to anyone.
Someday, we’re going to wonder how the US became a fascist state.
There is nothing in the stated arguments from Obama or his supporters that limits these actions to places outside of the US borders, actually. The stated rationale is that the President* has the authority to do anything whatsoever in the name of the War On Feeling Afraid Of Things, and is not subject to review, oversight, or veto by any other person or body whatsoever. There are not generally any qualifiers made that would prevent, e.g., drone-bombing a declared “terrorist” in Nevada or kidnapping an American citizen from Miami and deporting him to Bahrain for torture.
*when a Democrat, of course
I think it’s the right decision, and it will only become wrong in the eyes of the SDMB when a Republican is again in office.
Can you explain the non-snarky part of your post? Is it OK for the executive branch to order my murder without any sort of due process as soon as I step into some other country? That seems to be what this is saying.
For what it’s worth, I think this is a terrible course of action. The precedent for these shenanigans was started in the previous administration (as far as I can tell), but I think it’s awful that Obama has continued them and made them bi-partisan. And, I’m a pretty reliable voter for Democrats. I think I even started a pit thread over this (although maybe it was for Libya).
Well, you know about it, and they aren’t hiding that they’re doing it. How is that not transparent? 
Are you affiliated with or do you support Al Qaida or a related group that is responsible for the 9-11 attacks? If so, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the President to use military force against you regardless of your nationality and without recourse to the courts.
If you are not affiliated with those groups, then it is not okay to kill you.
I don’t understand how anyone can call themselves a good person and NOt think this is evil. Not wrong, not bad, but EVIL.
Due process is how we, as a society have decided the government can strip some of our fundamental rights away. Indeed the ONLY way it can do so.
To allow our government to bypass this protection AND allow it to do so in complete secrecy and with 0 accountability is beyond stupid.
I always wondered how terrible regimes came to power in other countries through out history. I, like most everyone I would imagine, asked their parents/teachers - how can people be so stupid as to allow X to happen, to take control over their country.
Well, I got my answer it seems.
I’m not, but how would anyone know? If the executive branch says I am, then, for purposes of murdering me, I am. There is no oversight, no due process.
So, so long as some idiot holding some government office (because we all know how brilliant the average government employee is) thinks, guesses, hopes, has some intelligence of substance that is NOT open to scrutiny to the courts or the people, that you are/might be a member of, the son of someone who might/is/was a member of, or the guy who once drove/gave a lift to a member of - insert current boogie man du jour - it’s ok to kill you?
My vote is for when the PATRIOT act was passed.
Correction: if the Administration thinks you are so affiliated. No due process means no pesky courts deciding that the people you’re killing might just not be guilty.
[QUOTE=RitterSport]
Can you explain the non-snarky part of your post? Is it OK for the executive branch to order my murder without any sort of due process as soon as I step into some other country? That seems to be what this is saying.
[/QUOTE]
Drone strikes are obviously a blunt instrument. Same with air strikes. There is simply no way that, even if they wanted too, the military could pop down and ask for your papers and hold off on it’s strikes because you happened to be an American. If you are with a group of folks suspected of being with AQ or the Taliban, and you are in the war zone or in one of the countries where these folks are hiding, then you are at risk at any time of something like this happening, whether you are an American or you are a Pakistani or Afghani. If the innocent civilians who happen to live there where these assholes are congregating are at risk, then you have no rights as an American to whine about being at equal risk…after all, these folks LIVE there and in most cases they have few options as too whether or not AQ or Taliban schlubs are in their village or town and thus are targets for these strikes. I agree with Bricker…this was the right call for the administration to make, and the drone strikes have been one of the most effective tools we’ve had in this conflict. It’s taken a lot of guts for Obama et al to stick to this, despite a lot of whinage from the left, and it’s one of the reasons I voted for him again in his second term. He is making the tough calls, and foreign policy wise I have little to complain about wrt the calls he’s made.
Sorry, but they were specifically targeting an American. They didn’t get him by accident.
Whether or not the drone strikes are the right call seems like a topic for another thread. This thread is about the administration specifically killing Americans in other countries with no judicial oversight.
I heartily disagree – I think it takes fewer guts to send in drones to kill people far away than it would to risk our own armed forces to go in and arrest suspected terrorists (American or otherwise) and bring them to justice. The vast, vast majority of voters could not care less about these drone strikes and who they are killing. This is the cowards way out. And, this tool has been very effective in making more enemies – can you imagine the shitstorm that would occur if Pakistan sent over a drone and accidentally killed the wrong wedding party? That said, this seems like a hijack to me.
Where are courts supposed to get the constitutional authority to restrain the president from ordering a military strike?
Bricker, I think your snark was really unwarranted, by the way. I will grant that this would be a much bigger issue here at the SDMB if it was a Republican, but there are plenty of lefties right here in the Dope, right here in this thread, that express their hatred and displeasure of what this administration has done with due process and civil rights.
You realize that the President has defined “every adult male in Pakistan” as a “member of the Taliban” in order to pursue this angle (and even under that genocidal definition, the government’s own cooked statistics still report a 1 in 4 error rate)?
Well, we can cross that bridge when that question comes up. This was an assassination, not a military strike. There was no battle going on and we are not at war with Yemen, where the strike happened.