The Drone Strike program is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and an EGREGIOUS violation!

[tpeichel]

God has no problem with individuals defending themselves from people that are trying to harm or kill them. Using drone strikes as your method of self defense is questionable at best though, especially when so many innocent people die.

[Wickabee]

God has no problem with individuals defending themselves from people that are trying to harm or kill them. Using drone strikes as your method of self defense is questionable at best though, especially when so many innocent people die.

So he only has a problem defending against st those within. Got it.

[centrehice]

The assumption that more innocent civilians will die from a drone strike as opposed to poor Artillery, or Mortar fire is flat-out lie. With proper GPS co-ordinates, and accurate view of the situation from observing, the job done by drones can be carried out when the all-clear is evident, especially if it's a one building or one compound situation.

An army on the march in a systematic conventional Armour/Infantry/Artillery scenario, depends on forward observing and obliterating everything in it's path with a scorched Earth policy.

Because terrorist armies are more Guerrilla in nature, conventional warfare does not apply. You are always going to have an element of non-combatants killed, and fratricide, no matter how war is conducted.

People are now so namby-pamby about the PC of drones, but do posters on here realize how many actual casualties there were in the Allied ranks in previous wars from short-shot Atillery? How many civilian casualties while only shooting at the other army? Thousands upon thousands, but that's acceptable?

[pghin08]

Aren't the "rights" provided to all US citizens in your Constitution "God-given"? If so, why would anyone be okay with denying those "god-given" rights to a person just because they are not born in the US? Sounds like they are actually "government-given" rights.

Nope. Not God-given at all, contrary to what a lot of American Christians want to think, God shows up nowhere in the US Constitution. They are absolutely rights of the people as judged by the government.

[tpeichel]

Take God out of it and there is still the inherent right to defend oneself against harm. A government simply affirms or denies that right.

[Wickabee]

Nope. Not God-given at all, contrary to what a lot of American Christians want to think, God shows up nowhere in the US Constitution. They are absolutely rights of the people as judged by the government.

Ok, but aren't all men created equal?

Or are just all Americans created equal?

Basically I just can't make the distinction between killing an American enemy and killing a foreign enemy. If it's known that these people are actively fighting against America, that means it's a war. The fact that there are Americans on both sides says there are elements of civil war here.

So, by what you're saying, in the US civil war, everyone who died got a trial first. Is that historically accurate?

[pghin08]

Ok, but aren't all men created equal?

Or are just all Americans created equal?

Basically I just can't make the distinction between killing an American enemy and killing a foreign enemy. If it's known that these people are actively fighting against America, that means it's a war. The fact that there are Americans on both sides says there are elements of civil war here.

So, by what you're saying, in the US civil war, everyone who died got a trial first. Is that historically accurate?

All men are created equal, I do believe that. However, not all men are American, and American law does not apply to a Saudi terrorist. It does apply to an American citizen. I get you here, an enemy is an enemy. I'm just not comfortable that the US can up and kill a citizen because they deem him to be an "enemy". You start getting into definitions and interpretation, which can be troublesome.

Timothy McVeigh got a trial before he was executed. Shouldn't we have at least tried to detain al-Aulaqi, rather than subject him to it right away?

And I should stress this, I don't like the targeting of America's "enemies", foreign or domestic (I often think it simply fosters more hatred). My point is solely that up until this point in the War on Terror, American citizens still had their rights. Now I'm not so sure.

Edit: Also, civil war in both of the senses you have used it is kind of irrelevant. Just because one schmuck who was born here hates the US doesn't mean there are "elements of a civil war", it just means al-Aulaqi sucks. The American Civil War simply isn't a comparison to what is going on now. It's apples and oranges. This was two sides fighting against each other in an organized and declared fashion. Yes, this is part of the "War on Terror", but that's a war with no boundaries whatsoever, and is similar to the Civil War in one way: they have "war" in the title. That's where the likenesses end.

[habsheaven]

All men are created equal, I do believe that. However, not all men are American, and American law does not apply to a Saudi terrorist. It does apply to an American citizen. I get you here, an enemy is an enemy. I'm just not comfortable that the US can up and kill a citizen because they deem him to be an "enemy". You start getting into definitions and interpretation, which can be troublesome.

Timothy McVeigh got a trial before he was executed. Shouldn't we have at least tried to detain al-Aulaqi, rather than subject him to it right away?

And I should stress this, I don't like the targeting of America's "enemies", foreign or domestic (I often think it simply fosters more hatred). My point is solely that up until this point in the War on Terror, American citizens still had their rights. Now I'm not so sure.

Edit: Also, civil war in both of the senses you have used it is kind of irrelevant. Just because one schmuck who was born here hates the US doesn't mean there are "elements of a civil war", it just means al-Aulaqi sucks. The American Civil War simply isn't a comparison to what is going on now. It's apples and oranges. This was two sides fighting against each other in an organized and declared fashion. Yes, this is part of the "War on Terror", but that's a war with no boundaries whatsoever, and is similar to the Civil War in one way: they have "war" in the title. That's where the likenesses end.

I have confidence in your government (and many other governments also) when I say, I am sure they put a lot of deliberate consultation and thought into each opportunity to take out an enemy combatant. I have NO FEAR that a method of combat like drones will be abused.

[Wickabee]

I have confidence in your government (and many other governments also) when I say, I am sure they put a lot of deliberate consultation and thought into each opportunity to take out an enemy combatant. I have NO FEAR that a method of combat like drones will be abused.

That's just it. First you have to elect a President that wants to rule in that manner. Claiming the guy who was elected wants to is not the same thing.

[habsheaven]

Not sure what you are saying?