0
beowulf

Can the President order an American killed on US soil with a drone?

Recommended Posts

You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example.

Would you kill someone you suspect of doing something like Timothy McVeigh? What if your suspicions are wrong? Is suspicion enough to make yourself judge, jury and executioner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example.

Yes, a reasonable knowledge. Say you saw him build the bomb and drive the van there, and then you saw him park it and start to arm it.

Would you kill him, if that were your one chance to stop him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are assuming that enough information would be had to determine guilt. Catching someone in the act is an obvious decision. You are assuming that the president will have that in any order of use of drone strikes. Considering past drone strikes its not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. Sounds like you would kill him, but don't think that the situation applies.

So let's put in in terms the letter uses, one that does not require knowledge of the future.

You are the president. You get a call. "Sir, we have intercepted a hijacked Fedex 757 that was taken over by terrorists. They are fully fueled and are headed for downtown Manhattan at 1200 feet and at approximately 400 knots. They do not respond to radio or visual signals. Intelligence chatter indicates Al Qaeda is planning a strike today.

Our drone has a lock on the aircraft. Do we take it out?"

What do you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't send a drone to do that. Fighter jets would scrambled. Not the same thing as drone usage.

Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the President should have that kind of power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are trying to find a scenario that sounds good for this type of power. This is not something the president should have or anyone. It's not right that this is done in other countries much less our country. Due process should not be circumvented at the President's will to assassinate US citizens suspected of anything. Catching someone in the act of a crime is not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I wouldn't send a drone to do that.

You may not have the choice. You don't get the assets you want when something like that happens; you get the assets that are close.

>Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in
>other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the
>President should have that kind of power?

No, the president should definitely NOT have the authority to sign an order that says "go find John Smith and then kill him with a drone." The president definitely SHOULD have the authority to take military action against an attack against the US, even if it means killing US citizens with drones. Thus I agree with the letter:

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I wouldn't send a drone to do that.

You may not have the choice. You don't get the assets you want when something like that happens; you get the assets that are close.

>Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in
>other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the
>President should have that kind of power?

No, the president should definitely NOT have the authority to sign an order that says "go find John Smith and then kill him with a drone." The president definitely SHOULD have the authority to take military action against an attack against the US, even if it means killing US citizens with drones. Thus I agree with the letter:

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."



That is only a hypothetical scenario. There is nothing that stops the President from saying so and so is a terrorist and we need to take him out and then orders a drone strike. Claiming that it's to protect the country from a 9/11 like attack. Since a 9/11 attack doesn't happen he can claim that he thwarted the attack and therefore he was justified in the drone strike. Who will question it? How would any one say anything different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are trying to justify having one man have the power of judge, jury and executioner and assuming he will have enough information to do so with full justification. I don't care who that one person is it's not right. There must be more then one person making that kind of decision. You are assuming that every time such a decision is made it will be to stop some sort of 9/11 type attack, but that only depends on one persons point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

As long as there's a so-called "war on terror", and the person is actively engaged in warfare against our country...maybe.

Blues,
Dave



Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities???



If a drone operator had a clear shot at one of the planes on 9/11/01, should he have taken it?

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

As long as there's a so-called "war on terror", and the person is actively engaged in warfare against our country...maybe.

Blues,
Dave



Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities???



If a drone operator had a clear shot at one of the planes on 9/11/01, should he have taken it?

Blues,
Dave



That involves huge assumptions and unknowns. Like it's future trajectory, maybe it's not going to hit a building. Just because you shoot it down doesn't mean it's going to just disappear. It will fall to the ground. Now you have to consider the casualties incurred by where it lands. Do you really want someone sitting in front of a TV with a joy stick manipulating a drone to do that? Or someone like the President getting second or third hand information making that kind of decision??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What part of "actively" and "maybe" were unclear? There are some limited situations in which I believe it could be justified.

Blues,
Dave



That's your opinion. What if the President or any future Presidents don't see it the same way as you? It's all very subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>That is only a hypothetical scenario.

Correct. That's a scenario in which it would be not just OK - but his job.

>Since a 9/11 attack doesn't happen he can claim that he thwarted the attack and
>therefore he was justified in the drone strike. Who will question it?

If this forum is any indication, half the country.

>Do you really think there will never be a President that would never abuse this power???

They have this power (commanding the military to meet immediate threats.) They have abused this power in the past.

>What if he is wrong? Will he then be prosecuted for murder?

Then he should be impeached, and if the impeachment is successful, prosecuted for murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You are trying to justify having one man have the power of judge, jury and
>executioner and assuming he will have enough information to do so with full
>justification.

Yes. That is the Constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. If you want to start the Constitutional amendment process to strip that power from him, then go for it. Until then he has that power.

>I don't care who that one person is it's not right.

?? Do you advocate the prosecution of George Bush for murder, since he ordered the military to go to war - and consequently killed 4000 Americans - based on what was at best a lack of competence and at worst a lie?

>You are assuming that every time such a decision is made it will be to stop some sort
>of 9/11 type attack, but that only depends on one persons point of view.

No, I'm assuming that on occasion they may use that power incorrectly - and will be impeached under the Constitutional provisions for such an abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0