Why do you keep saying affirmative defense?
A defense is only required where a primae facie case of guilt is made. You have done no such thing. Instead you have asked us to prove that no law has been broken.
No, it is your responsibility as someone claiming these actions are a part of a valid war to show that they meet the terms of the declaration of war. We should not assume that just because a person was killed that he was a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban. I have repeatedly asked you to present evidence that each killing involved an imminent threat or a person who is a part of a group responsible for 911; you should admit you don’t have such evidence if don’t, or present it if you do. The government has never released such evidence or suggested that they have such evidence. I have answered every question put to me, but none of the people claiming these are valid acts of war will present evidence that these are valid acts of war. I again challenge the people claiming the drone strikes are valid acts of war to present evidence that they valid acts of war by presenting evidence that each person targeted was an imminent threat or a part of a group responsible 911. Either you have this evidence or you are arguing in bad faith.
This is why we should charge the pilots, if they really have an affirmative defense that the killings are valid acts of war, they can bring forth the evidence. As it is, we know they are killing people, but we have no evidence that the killings are valid acts of war. We should not assume the killings are valid acts of war, just like we should not assume that Zimmermann killed Martin in self defense. It is an affirmative defense and we need to see evidence.
And I didn’t say it mattered when the person joined, but new terrorist groups have started since 2001. Congress needs to broaden the declaration of war if these groups are to be included.
Intentionally killing people is a crime unless it is justified. The only way these killing are justified is if they are valid acts of war. But no evidence has been presented that the people targeted were either an imminent threat or a part of a group responsible for 911. The prima facie case is that they targeted people and killed them. If they are justified in the killing or immune from prosecution because they were killing people as a valid act of war, they have to present evidence that the killings were in fact valid acts of war.
It is like Zimmermann. He killed Martin and that makes a prima facie case. It is now his responsibility to bring forth evidence showing that it was self defense.
Naive Evian, you are going off the deep end. **Damuri Ajashi **said it quite well. We don’t require people to provide an affirmative defense. You have to provide evidence of guilt. A person in the military killing someone under orders is not assumed to have committed a crime. You have to provide some evidence that they have, and you have failed miserably in doing so.
ETA: And looking at your last response to **Damuri **you are off the deep end. Your ‘logic’ would require every person in the military to be tried for their part in the deaths of our enemies simply because they were killed. Once again, a soldier killing an presumed enemy under orders is not assumed to have committed a crime. It is the opposite case, they are presumed not to have committed a crime and you (or your hypothetically insane prosecutor) had the burden of proof, and the fact that a killing occurred is by no means proof, nor even prima fascie evidence that a crime has occurred at all.
[QUOTE=Naive Evian]
There is no evidence that the civilians ordering the strikes have gone through the proper procedures.
[/QUOTE]
What do you base your assertion that there is ‘no evidence that the civilians ordering the strikes have gone through the proper procedures’? Do you honestly believe that there are no lawyers who work for the US government, and who have looked through the rules of engagement, including the rules of engagement for the use of drones (or missile strikes or smart bombs or, well, everything else we use in war)?
What about the killings, in your uninformed opinion, isn’t ‘proper’? What about them is in any way different than when we send in an attack aircraft or bomber to drop bombs on a target? Or send in a missile strike? Or shoot artillery or MLRS?? Unless you are saying that all of those are illegal too, I don’t see the difference here. And if you ARE saying those are ‘illegal’ acts, then the term ‘illegal’ is meaningless.
Unless you are saying that any military action is illegal, again, I fail to see the distinction here. Do you think that the President and Congress should not be allowed to make war on other countries or groups? Do they not have the legal power to do so?
So what? What do you think this has to do with anything?
Total horseshit.
This fails on pretty much every level. I don’t think the pilots in charge of the drones would have this information available to them in the first place - I don’t think they decide who to target; they act on intelligence collected by other people - and the government has never said it doesn’t have evidence on the targets of these strikes. (The idea that the government “has never suggested it has evidence” is absurd.) I suppose the most ridiculous idea here is the notion that the government would charge the people who are implementing its own military police.
[QUOTE=Naive Evian]
It is like Zimmermann. He killed Martin and that makes a prima facie case. It is now his responsibility to bring forth evidence showing that it was self defense.
[/QUOTE]
Um no, you are wrong here as well. It’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone committing murder did in fact commit murder. The defense will certainly present the evidence they feel they need to in order to dispute the prosecutions case, but it’s up to the prosecution to demonstrate that murder (or whatever other crime we are talking about) has in fact been committed.
Seriously, you shouldn’t get into these discussions when it’s clear you don’t even understand the basics, let alone when you are trying to extrapolate that into that of a nation state and war.
We don’t know know what they have done. If you think there is evidence, present it. As it is, you are just assuming that there is evidence.
There is no evidence that the drone strikes comply with the congressional declaration. Again, if you think there is, present it.
[quoteUnless you are saying that any military action is illegal, again, I fail to see the distinction here. Do you think that the President and Congress should not be allowed to make war on other countries or groups? Do they not have the legal power to do so?[/quote]
Have you failed to read what I wrote in this thread. If the drone program complies with the congressional authorization, then it is fine. There is no evidence that all the killings do comply.
I am getting tired of asking for the evidence that all the killing involved an imminent threat or a person involved in group responsible for 911. That is what it takes for the killings to be valid acts of war. Where is the evidence? All of you are arguing in bad faith because you will not present the evidence or admit that you have no evidence. You just assuming because the killing are done under orders that they are valid. But even the administration admits that the killing have have to involve an imminent threat or a person involved in group responsible for 911; however, the government has presented no evidence to support that these killing involve an imminent threat or a person involved in group responsible for 911. No evidence. I would say they want us to take their word for it, but they don’t even give us that.
The defendant has the burden of proof for an affirmative defense.
In the drone strikes we have the killing of human beings proximately caused by the acts of other human beings with intent. If the pilots want to argue justification, the burden is on them.
Since nobody will present any evidence is response to my requests, here are some different questions:
-
For a drone strike to be valid, does it have to involve an imminent threat or involve a person or group identified in the congressional authorization?
-
If you answered yes to number 1, what is the evidence for each drone strike that the requirements were meet?
-
If you answered no to number 1, if the president’s power to order drone strikes does not come from a constitutional power to protect against imminent threats or the congressional authorization, where does it come from and what are its limits?
Well, don’t you need evidence to prosecute them? Where’s the evidence?
Then stop wasting our time with that request. You are asking us to go out and prove every drone strike was legitimate when you could punch a hole in the argument by showing evidence that just one was not. Since you haven’t done that, I assume you have absolutely no basis for your claims.
The drone drone strikes are valid acts of war.
What is your evidence for that?
They just are!
The evidence is that no person or organization of standing has said they are not. The president has said they were authorized by him, so unless you provide evidence to the contrary nothing else is needed.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
The government has already admitted that they have human beings intentionally killing other human beings. Now, it is time to whether these killings are justified, which is an affirmative defense. The pilots and others involved have not committed a crime if they can establish the targeted people were imminent threats or part of a group responsible for 911. But they have to,preent this evidence. All we know is that the pilots intentionally and proximately caused the death of human beings through their acts.
The fact that no one has been charged with any crimes. The fact that it’d be absurd to think that someone could be. That’s my evidence for it.
What I don’t understand is why you think anyone owes YOU an explanation, especially when you’ve demonstrated that you don’t even know what the rules are. You seem unable to tell the difference between “I have no evidence” and “there is no evidence,” but you’re keen on asserting the latter. What you really mean to say is that YOU don’t have any evidence and that YOU don’t know what is actually going on. Why you think you can extrapolate that to the rest of the country, I don’t know.
Correction: All Naive Evian knows. Thankfully, there are more informed people in places of power.
You might not be able to determine how many persons were killed “illegally” on a message board. You can best pursue this on the ground. I’ll kick in a fiver to help get you air fare to Pakistan.
Anyone else want to contribute?
The president has not said that every person targeted was an imminent threat or a part of a group responsible for 911. And even if he did, that would be very weak evidence.
My suggestion gives these pilots more than give the people they kill. A fair trial where they present evidence of an affirmative defense after the prosecution makes its case.
You are just assuming the strikes are valid. I say it is better to see what evidence the government and pilots can bring forth. Let’s not just assume.
You sound like the people who say waterboarding is not torture because our government waterboarded people and our government does not torture people, so water boarding is not torture, instead of looking at the evidence.
In the context of war that’s not against the law, so there is no requirement for an affirmative defense. If we can get real for a moment, the government asserts that the drone program is self-defense and is supported by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That’s the basis for the drone strikes for almost a decade and it’s not going to be thrown out the window now. The president’s power to make war is not subject to judicial oversight and I don’t think the AUMF requires the president to go through a judicial process in targeting suspected terrorists or sharing that information with the public (beyond whatever is shared with the Congressional intelligence committees, for example), and in reality essentially all the evidence here is classified. You’re trying to work backward to reach a conclusion that does not make sense.