Obama administration confirms: Drones targeted US citizens

It’s been a bad couple of months for the Obama administration.

nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us … .html?_r=0

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the administration’s policy of targeted assassination on citizens, I find it ironic that such a practice would come from the President who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected.

Man, the Nobel Peace prize was given to the European Union this time around. It’s a joke. Plus, as a EU citizen, I am still waiting for my share of the prize money.

Drone attacks are strikes against enemy combats, not assassinations. They are a less violent means of conducting strikes. (Perhaps you would prefer B52s?) I’m sure Obama would love to stop using drones, but by not doing anything, things could get a lot worse: fall of Pakistan and the theft of their nuclear weapons; nuclear proliferation after Iran gets the bomb; war between Israel and Iran; rampant terrorism all over the world. The fact that Obama is speaking publicly about this shows that he cares about transparency. When was the last time a president spoke openly about how the American military conducts war? I give a lot of credit to Bush, too, for trying to use less violent means of American force - cyber warfare, drones, nation building. Nation building failed miserably, but the other two have been more effective than their predecessors.

If you’re going to criticize Obama, talk about the shit corporate America is doing to screw over everyone. Allowing banks and corporation to influence policy the way they have without even attempting reform is disgusting and cowardly.

That’s not what the news said. There has been 1 US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, targeted for drone strikes, it’s been known for years, because that dude is a huge al-Qaeda terrorist.

The other 3 US citizen simply died in drone strikes, but weren’t the target.

Although I don’t think drone strikes should be carried out at all due to the high civilian casualties they have caused, if you’re going to going to use them I don’t see why being an American citizen should make any difference. A bad guy is a bad guy.

The issue isn’t about drones but about Constitutional rights for US citizens. What ever happened to a fair trial?

I certainly agree that people should receive a fair trial but everyone should receive it. Not just US citizens. Most, if not all, the targets of drones are not actively fighting at the time they’re targeted. As such, they should be according prisoner of war status in line with the GC. There shouldn’t be one rule for some and another for others.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]It’s been a bad couple of months for the Obama administration.

nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us … .html?_r=0

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the administration’s policy of targeted assassination on citizens, I find it ironic that such a practice would come from the President who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected.[/quote]

No, he was awarded the peace prize for getting elected…and being black. Affirmative action has spread everywhere.

The father/grandfather of the American drone strike victims is an Egyptian guy that I saw interviewed a while back. He struck me as a decent sort who had immigrated to the US and that he wanted the justice system to explain how killing of American citizens is not against the US constitution and bill of rights.

He had raised the grandkid himself and the grandkid wasn’t involved in terrorist activities. He was killed by a drone strike on a street cafe in Yemen. The grandkid was going back to the US in a few days.

These drone strikes have caused hundreds of deaths, women and children too. It’s just fucked up.

America is caught in a sacred holy war against evil that’s threatening to take away the American way of life. It’s not just for Americans but for everyone, including the people in the countries they’re attacking. You’re either with us or against us. Personally, a few dead citizens and a few corners cut here and there on personal liberties is a small price to pay for feeling safe and keeping the American dream alive for the entire planet :unamused:

The US declared war on terrorism. Anwar al-Awlaki = al-Qaeda terrorist. What fair-trial? If Osama Bin Laden happened to be a dual citizen of the US, would you think twice about killing him in his compound? Where’s the fair trial for that? How is it different just because Anwar al-Awlaki is a citizen? The dude renounced his citizenship at heart, only keeping it to exploit the US.

Perhaps the US should have declared him a traitor and voided his citizenship. But I think droning his behind is pretty much the same statement.

Hypothetically, what if an American citizen with no other citizenship, let’s say a Caucasian to drive the point home, was living in a foreign country and was accused of being a terrorist mastermind. Would you be ok with a targeted assassination on him?

if he’s the senior talent recruiter for al-Qaeda, makes videos to recruit others to wage holy war to conduct terror attacks on western nations on blogs, facebook and youtube, to the point people refer to him as Bin Laden of the internet, finally involved himself in plotting suicide bombing of a plane and marked as an “imminent threat” by the intelligence, then yes, good bye to that old chap, hope he got his martyrdom.

That very much goes against my understanding of a citizen’s Constitutional rights.

I hate to be a dick, and I stand up for the US a lot on this forum, but this is what happens when populations get whipped up into a frenzy over boogeymen, and sacrifice their freedoms in the name of safety.

All the media scare-mongering, agenda driven BS, slagging off the ACLU etc. so the previous administration could push through legislation has lead to this. Shame on the current admin for not rescinding them, but a scared, uninformed populace wouldn’t understand and a menacing media wouldn’t forgive.

Can’t be weak on terror, or weak on safety, but the precious constitution that everyone defends so vehemently when it comes to semi-automatic weapons was left hung out to dry when personal freedoms were under attack.

This is the end result of having an uninformed population feeding off a ratings hungry media.

Its not the right time to be sober…

As an American, I don’t think your above comment is in the slightest bit insulting or offensive. A lot of Americans like to invoke the Constitution as the ultimate argument, but many seem to do so only selectively.

I think the freedoms of Americans should be protected. But in this case, I don’t consider Anwar al-Awlaki an American any more, not because he’s not white (i’m not white nor christian, so what do I care about his race or religion), but because he is a traitor.

Take another scenario, if an American was openly pro-NAZI during WW2, so be it, it’s his freedom of speech. If he is then recruiting for others to join the NAZIs so they can attack the US, well, that’s difficult to say. Now if he escapes to Germany and is actively involved in bombing the US and killing Americans for the NAZIs, the guy is a traitor, and can be shot on sight. If he is captured, maybe he can get a trial. But since he is evading capture, then good riddance.

Unless you guys are arguing for there’s no way for us to know that Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist, he was actually just some random Imman that got smeared by the US intelligence for who knows why, otherwise I stand by my conviction that by the time he was involved in multiple bomb plots, he’s a traitor aiding the enemy, in this case, a terrorist.

If the drones is used to target any Americans, it is wrong, and it should be stopped. If it is used to target a known terrorist like Anwar al-Awlaki , then he is a traitor, and that’s it.

First point, Obama did not get elected because of affirmative action. If he could take out the Clinton machine, he had skill. I may disagree with his politics on many occasions, but I would NEVER
underestimate his Chicago politics ability to get traction on issues that he wants to see promoted.

Second, I think that the drone issue is more akin to innocent victims (minus the American al Qaeda targeted killing) caught up and killed in police shootouts or chases. Regrettable but a reality
when it comes to taking down/out criminals/terrorists.

Third, the drone killings are one indication of the success of public opinion regarding Guantanamo. Bush “arrested” them and got into all manner of trouble with the “caring” public.
Better then, the lesson appears to be, to just kill them on the battlefield so that we don’t have to listen to the “sensitivity-based” braying of the ever-protesting Left? I have to laugh
ever time I watch RT (Russia Today) TV news. It has the rambling paranoid left down to a T and targets it accordingly. I just worry that RT does it too well which would
seem to indicate (worryingly) that perhaps this view comes a bit too naturally to it? On the other hand, it is a salutary lesson against American hypocritical arrogance in foreign policy.
And maybe that is the best service of RT? it certainly has made a few touching (as in touché) points in these and other matters. Kind of like a darker version of the Onion?

[quote=“fred smith”]First point, Obama did not get elected because of affirmative action. If he could take out the Clinton machine, he had skill. I may disagree with his politics on many occasions, but I would NEVER
underestimate his Chicago politics ability to get traction on issues that he wants to see promoted.

Second, I think that the drone issue is more akin to innocent victims (minus the American al Qaeda targeted killing) caught up and killed in police shootouts or chases. Regrettable but a reality
when it comes to taking down/out criminals/terrorists.

Third, the drone killings are one indication of the success of public opinion regarding Guantanamo. Bush “arrested” them and got into all manner of trouble with the “caring” public.
Better then, the lesson appears to be, to just kill them on the battlefield so that we don’t have to listen to the “sensitivity-based” braying of the ever-protesting Left? I have to laugh
ever time I watch RT (Russia Today) TV news. It has the rambling paranoid left down to a T and targets it accordingly. I just worry that RT does it too well which would
seem to indicate (worryingly) that perhaps this view comes a bit too naturally to it? On the other hand, it is a salutary lesson against American hypocritical arrogance in foreign policy.
And maybe that is the best service of RT? it certainly has made a few touching (as in touché) points in these and other matters. Kind of like a darker version of the Onion?[/quote]

As Harold Macmillan supposedly interjected after Khruschev’s shoe-banging incident at the UN, “May i have a translation of that, please?”.

Oh really? :roflmao: Were they wearing uniforms? Part of an organized military? :roflmao: So, they should be treated accordingly, right – meaning NOT accorded POW status, and NOT handled under the Geneva Convention, since that only applies to real military. Right?

Wait! I get it! This is all trolling on your part, isn’t it? Comedy gold, man! :roflmao: