I have not argued that the military is a free-for-all. I have argued that members of the military are killing people as part of a program–which is pretty much the opposite of a free-for-all. I further argued that people is this program should be charged with crimes, BUT if they can bring forth evidence that either the people killed were an imminent threat or a part of a group involved in 9/11, the charges should dropped. We should not just assume that they evidence to support an affirmative defense. They must also answer for collateral kills.
It is like the case with George Zimmermann. He needs to support his affirmative defense.
I have not argued that the military is just killing anyone. They are only killing people targeted in the program and people near those targeted (and they have possibly made some mistakes, too).
I don’t how you are getting free-for-all from that.
Journalists aren’t a protected class of people, so let’s just say it’s an airstrike against unarmed civilians who are not in any way classified as enemies, and the first responders likewise. If authorized by the president I’d hope he would be impeached and charged with a crime, and if not, all those involved would be charged and tried by the military courts. I don’t expect that actually to be done. I expect at best the lowest people on the totem pole to be sacrificed as happened at Abu Graib.
I’m not oblivious to the challenges. They are similar to my demands for a retraction from moderators. They will be ignored. The constitution places no limits on the presidents ability to make war except for the requirement that such war be funded by congress.
Right, and Supreme court judges interpret the constitution, so what happens if those judges determine that “targeted killing” is not a legitimate act of war but is actually Assassination ?
I’m not going to the answer the OP’s question in a literal, legal interpretation. Seeing as how we are talking about the use of force in the international arena, where of course anarchy is the normal and prevalent state of relations, questions of “law” are, in my opinion, a waste of time.
I will say, however, that many Americans seem to have no problem accepting their military behaving overseas in a manner which I presume they would find unacceptable were another foreign power to treat the USA, its citizens and territory, in such a fashion.
I think the OP muddies the water here by introducing race as a rationale for this disparity between the way the USA treats other nations and the way it would prefer to be treated itself. The real rationale is the oldest one in the geopolitical book:
I sincerely hope that at some day in the not too-distant future, American historical consensus will judge the use of drone strikes in furtherance of the “War on Terror” as a reckless and shameful abuse of power.
That is patently false. The Constitution does not suddenly stop applying when the President decides he’s in a war. Nor do the treaties and laws of the United States. Saying “well, this is war”, isn’t some kind of magic spell that suddenly makes everything the President, military, or intelligence branches do legal and constitutional.
The reason that drone operators on some base in Nevada or wherever are not arrested and prosecuted for murder by some local or state authority is the same reason servicement aren’t arrestested for murder when they come back from war. Because “murder” is a legal definition and the authorized killing of people by uniform soldiers, marines and airmen, acting on behalf of the US Government, the DOD and their particular military branch, in accordance with the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, and whatever other laws apply to military personal does not qualify as “murder”.
That’s an interesting question if you replace “drone” with “regular old rife or handgun”. Can the US government hire someone from Blackwater (or Academi or Xe Services LLC or whatever they are called now) or just some regular civilian to go and kill someone. I suspect they can’t, legally (whether the CIA or other agencies do covertly is another manner). And if they can’t, does that apply to civilian contractors operating deadly weapon systems?
If it is indeed the case that civilian contractors are flying armed drones, I find that very troubling. One of the purposes of having a military force are the safeguards and clear chains of command that allow the upper echelon to control their activities. Lacking those, it’s inevitable that unnecessary killing will take place.
I somehow doubt that the drone pilots (military or otherwise) are simply flying the aircraft around, looking for something that needs killin’. In actual fact, I suspect that there are highly specific missions that are approved at high military levels.
Interesting discussion. I saw a retired British officer on television last night who explained how easy it is to make an error. He was controlling a drone and watched a person seeming to dig a hole in a road = planting an IED. Then he noticed a larger person appear and suddenly realised he was observing a child playing on the road.
I do think there are legs to a legal argument against drones but not a winning post. A pilot on the scene who drops a bomb etc is no different to a remote drone pilot and provided they both follow the rules of engagement, they are protected by their military status.
Cite please? And that is irrelevant to the question. Local prosecutors have no reasonable authority to charge the president with a crime based on your interpretation of the Constitution. Also, the idea that the president is hamstrung in the execution of a war is patently stupid. The president is obligated to protect the nations from threats and has far reaching authority to do so.
Yes, the government can do that, although it hasn’t been done for a long time.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8–
“The Congress shall have Power. . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Did you vote for him in the hopes that he would kill innocent civilians via drone strikes, and also kill US citizens via drone strikes without any due process?
Ummm, the Constitution? Nowhere in that document does it say: “does not apply in times of war”.
You could also check out Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, the Gitmo detainee cases, or the quasi war cases.
You made a grand statement that was wrong. I corrected you. Call it irrelevant all you want, I was simply pointing out your error.
But he can’t violate the Constitution, treaties or laws to do so. Once again, a “war” doesn’t suddenly make the Constitution, the laws or our obligations under treaties just disappear.
Presidents have discarded habeus without a problem. The cases you cite don’t involve immediate threats (I think, I’ll have to look further). And yes he can violate treaties and laws outside of the Constitution to protect the nation. My grand statement remains unchallenged by history.
Well, in hopes that he’d authorize strikes – drone or otherwise, it makes no difference to me – against valid targets, and that he wouldn’t call the whole thing off if an innocent civilian suddenly wanders into the shot; otherwise, I reasoned, enemies could foil our military in general by (a) simply foiling our commander-in-chief in particular, thanks to (b) the simple expedient of always having an innocent civilian on hand. AFAICT, he’s lived up to those hopes.
I also hoped he wouldn’t knowingly target an innocent civilian, and AFAICT he’s lived up to those hopes as well. (Folks who merely dress like innocent civilians sure make it hard for him, though – which is why I’d also also hoped that he’d responsibly authorize the minimum necessary amount of force given the circumstances: if we can get the drop on someone and take him into custody without firing a shot, then cue due process; if we can’t, then I endorse the way he refers to it as actionable intelligence and, y’know, acts accordingly.)