Barack Obama defends 'just war' using drones

[Gerald]

Drones effective scout.

President Obama says it is a "hard fact" that drone strikes have killed civilians.President Barack Obama has defended the use of drones in a "just war" of self-defence against deadly militants and a campaign that had made America safer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22638533

Note: 24 May 2013 Last updated at 05:53 GMT

[MH]

Damn....terminator drones.
Where is John Connor when you need him.

[Catfish]

Seems drone kills have recently been put on the list of international war crimes.
So Obama's speech might be a reaction to this
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-leg...-crime/5334665
and that
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...drone-strikes/

"Oops well you know our drone attacks killed a lot of civilians, but we will be more cautious in the future."

[mookiemookie]

Rights going down the drain. And their justification for doing it is pretty much just the honor system. "Oh don't worry, we killed these guys. Trust us, they were bad guys. Of course we can't show you any of the evidence against them, because that would be a national security breach, but trust us, they were bad guys."

The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.

The way I understood POTUS is US citizen on foreign soil actively engaging in activity to harm US citizens is fair game for a drone. The citizenship renounced. Nowhere did he say it is ok to use a drone against a US citizen here in the states. This is how I understood the 60 second portion of the speech I heard.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The way I understood POTUS is US citizen on foreign soil actively engaging in activity to harm US citizens is fair game for a drone. The citizenship renounced.

That does not count as renouncing your citizenship. There is a formal process for doing so.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The way I understood POTUS is US citizen on foreign soil actively engaging in activity to harm US citizens is fair game for a drone. The citizenship renounced.

The government can not revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen. Naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked.

A natural-born citizen can choose to revoke their own citizenship but the government can't take it away from them.

Concerning the drones, I am having a hard time imagining that a person 10,000 miles away is posing an immediate and imminent threat to the US.

When it comes to using drones against US citizens, the Bush/Obama policy violates so many rights I can't wait for this to come up before the SCOTUS. And there is no way Obama can avoid responsibility.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Rights going down the drain. And their justification for doing it is pretty much just the honor system. "Oh don't worry, we killed these guys. Trust us, they were bad guys. Of course we can't show you any of the evidence against them, because that would be a national security breach, but trust us, they were bad guys."

The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.

I would have to concur.

edit:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The way I understood POTUS is US citizen on foreign soil actively engaging in activity to harm US citizens is fair game for a drone. The citizenship renounced. Nowhere did he say it is ok to use a drone against a US citizen here in the states. This is how I understood the 60 second portion of the speech I heard.

I can understand an active shooting situation. I can also understand if said scumbag citizen happen to be in the wrong place at the right time. As in, "oops, I guess he shouldn't have been there then huh?" However if said person is ever captured, they still have due process.

Seems drone kills have recently been put on the list of international war crimes.

No. A local court has made a local ruling.

he United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them.

Doesn't that make it plain extra-judicial murder. Which is exactly what other governments get condemned for doing

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.

^this

I was supportive of drone strikes when it was for recon purposes, or for taking out some truck full of terrorists... but when you consider that some or all of the occupants of the truck are born in Parma Ohio, raised in Newark, New Jersey and in their adult years became militant against the US government... well it makes no difference, protected by the constitution = protected by the constitution any way you slice it.

It is unprecedented - our own government is using remote drone warfare to murder US Citizens who have been deemed unworthy of due process of law.

If it can be proven that any president, past or present authorized drone strikes against US Citizens... they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

^this



It is unprecedented - our own government is using remote drone warfare to murder US Citizens who have been deemed unworthy of due process of law.

The due process is handled without the said individual involved in the proceedings that are held to determine if the individual is worthy. He just did not want to come in and talk about it. Drone dispatched.

[Skybird]

Like it or not, drones are the future, and they become increasingly omnipresent - not only in warzone, but our public sphere in our home countries, too. Media, police, everybody - try to stop it. You will fail. Heck, even for private use, toy-drones are being sold. That is a door-opener - to make them being taken for normal, and raise acceptance by that. The F-35 is most likely the last manned combat fighter build by the US. And it is not just the sky. Drones for naval operations are being build, too. And drones for landwarfare.

Militarily, drones obviously are vulnerable to one main concern: the vulnerability of the control signal link. Iran claimed to have successfully interfered with the radio signals remote-controlling one US drone, and by that triggering the automatic emergency landing protocols of that drone that enabled Iran to get it in its hand and gain access to the video memory.

What that means, is a logical step that many of you will like even less: the shifting from remote-controlled to autonomous combat drones. I do not like it, you do not like it, most people will not like it, and legislation will be made to prevent or at least limit that. But autonomous drones are the logical next step. And it will become real.

And not in just 30 years or so.

There is another concern. Drones are made of components manufactured by a variety of nations. You cannot conclude by the built drone you captured who really has send it. With more and more nations, and the technically interested public enthusiasts, organised crime and the academic international community anyway having access to cheap and unsuspicious electronic components and the knowledge how to assemble a drone (a pipe bomb, a nuclear bomb etc) thanks to the internet, not only nations can soon send a combat drone into action without allowing to be identified and thus being held responsible for it: especially organised crime, terrorists wil be doing it also.

Mr. Redline alias Mr. Buticannot has by now collected an impressive record of empty speeches that arouse emotions and are rhetorically brilliant more or less, its just that his words tend to mean nothing but hot air. And even if there will be treaties and laws (and I strictly doubt the American and any state's interest in such laws since state governments are about control and power, not freedom): is anyone really naive enough to think that that will mean anything?

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The United States government definitively says it can kill its citizens if it's too inconvenient to arrest them and try them. That's the bottom line. If you think your government, no matter who is in the White House, should have that power, then you really don't care about your rights.

well then they need to send the drones after Obama and all his cronies because its obviously too inconvenient to arrest them and try them or even do a proper investigation on them.