U.S. to disclose legal justification for drone strikes on Americans

Comments (8)
drdhesq wrote:

I don’t know why the government’s legal justification to kill someone should ever be secret.

May 20, 2014 8:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

Yeah, because it’s so important to protect rights of such a wonderful, upstanding citizen, like Anwar al-Awlaki. Keep up the good work civil liberties groups.

May 20, 2014 8:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

The president can kill American citizens with drone strikes and get away with it. Dinesh D’Sousa gets some friends to donate to a politician and reimburses them and it looks like he may go to prison. Where is the justice there? It will only be a matter of time beforenthe strikes move to our home soil with this guy in charge.

May 20, 2014 9:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Not sure how you make the leap from campaign law violations to drones strikes…but the irrational logic of the delusional knows no bounds. I think the use of drones against terrorists is brilliant! GW initiated the program. These are people mind you who have either participated in a Terrorist act, are engaged in training terrorists and suicide bombers and have gone on foreign media advocating the killing of innocent U.S. citizens. These are people who have demonstrated their resolve in this matter. But like cockroaches, they scurry into the woodwork when military force is applied. The use of drones has been brilliant in spying on and eliminating these threats. Whenever an American travels to the Middle East and joins these groups, engages in terrorist activities and goes on media and advocates the killing of innocent Americans they have essentially declared war on the U.S. The drones are an effective way to pre-empt these people from executing such activities. Those of you that oppose the use of drones against these terrorist are essentially saying you support those that have no problem talking some delusional religious idiot into strapping on TNT and blowing up themselves along with innocent women and children. Where were those victims rights to due process? These people have been fore warned (drones)..that is their due process.

May 20, 2014 10:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

johndeere67..seriously? I’m assuming you live in the Middle East. Hence your reference to “our”. That or I missed the news flash were a drone strike was called on a home or car in the U.S.

May 20, 2014 11:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

The problem here isn’t drones. The problem here is extra-judicial killings by any means.

How do you know the target was a terrorist? Because the people who did the killing say so. There is no trial. There is no evidence presented. The victim is given no opportunity to defend themselves.

The question of legality is a big red herring. The USA does not rule the world, so US law stops at US borders. If the person being killed is outside the USA, then local laws apply. The USA cannot ‘legalise’ actions in another country.

May 20, 2014 12:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


“Yeah, because it’s so important to protect rights of such a wonderful, upstanding citizen, like Anwar al-Awlaki. Keep up the good work civil liberties groups.”

All the US government needs to do is identify you as a “terrorist”, and then they can send the drones to kill you. Apparently you are so trusting of the government and politicians you could never see them abusing this. Maybe the next administration says that Tea Party Patriots are terrorists, maybe the next administration says that PETA are terrorists. That is all it takes for them to throw due process out the door and you are fine and dandy with it. Due process is a right to protect us from the government. If you are going to throw that out for a war on a war tactic (the whole idea of which can only come from the small brain of GW), the terrorists won.

May 21, 2014 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@TheNewWorld ~ I thought PETA were already terrorists?


May 21, 2014 12:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.