Four NOT Two Americans Were Killed In Drone Strikes

[kpete]

Four not Two

by digby

Why am I seeing headlines all day about the US admitting to killing two Americans in drones strikes back in January? It was four Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/white-house-hostages-killed/index.html

President Barack Obama announced Thursday that a U.S. counterterrorism operation targeting an al Qaeda compound in January accidentally killed two innocent hostages, including one American.

Multiple U.S. officials told CNN the hostages, Warren Weinstein, an American, and Italian national Giovanni Lo Porto, were killed by a U.S. military drone that targeted the al Qaeda compound.

"As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni," Obama said Thursday morning in the White House briefing room, where he apologized on behalf of the U.S. government.

The White House also disclosed Thursday that two Americans, both al Qaeda operatives, were also killed in U.S. counterterrorism operations in the same region.

Al Qaeda leader Ahmed Farouq, who was an American citizen and deputy emir of al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, was also killed in the operation that killed the two innocent hostages.

Adam Gadahn, another American in the senior ranks of al Qaeda, was also killed by U.S. forces in the region, "likely in a separate" counterterrorism operation, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Thursday.

It's terrible that the two hostages were killed, obviously. But it's probably important to note that they were killed in the process of purposefully targeting and killing another American. Something which we did to yet another American in a separate strike.

I guess this is all just normal stuff now. If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it and nobody will raise a stink. If they accidentally kill you then there's a problem. Good to know.




More:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/four-dead-americans-not-two.html
http://boingboing.net/2015/04/23/petraeus-receives-no-jail-time.html

[arcane1]

1. What's up with the "American in the senior ranks of al Qaeda"?

I wish I knew what was really going on out there.

[JI7]

2. what does that matter ? why should they be treated different than non americans ?

[delrem]

8. optics.

How many US americans have a clue how many countries that the US is bombing?
How many have a clue how many innocent Iraqi citizens the US killed, *for nothing*.
How many have a clue what the fallout has been after the US's coup in Libya?
How many know what a "moderate rebel" is, in the US war against Syria? How many even know that the US has declared "regime change" the objective in a war against Syria?
How many know how "al-qaeda/IS" is benefiting by the US backed killing spree in Yemen, and how many know how long that's been going on? How many know where IS gets its weapons, its funding, its ideology?

Answer on all points, and any number of points that can be easily added to the list: negligible, close enough to none. This couldn't happen if there was any awareness at all.

What do US americans know about this never-ending mass slaughter? They know that the US is in a "War on Terror" and the targets are "terrorists", given various changing names but always coming back to "al qaeda" because that brings the optics back to "9/11" and so a tangible pretext that it's about self-defence. Absurd as that pretext is - it's only absurd if a person thinks about it and how many do that?

[Scuba]

35. +1

[Smarmie Doofus]

58. Superb post. n/t

[Historic NY]

15. They are enemy combatants....

they forfeit their rights on the field of combat.

[metalbot]

44. What field of combat were they on?

I completely support the notion that if someone is shooting at you, whether they are military or civilian, we have a right to kill them. However, in the specific case being discussed here, none of the drone strike targets was currently engaged in combat. So let's extend that argument: if someone who is not a soldier took a shot at your soldiers on the battlefield, does that give you a right to target and bomb his specific house three months later because he shot at your soldier before? Are we arguing in essence that once you have been an "enemy combatant", you can be executed arbitrarily at any time in the future for that crime?

In the specific case of Adam Gadahn, he's almost certainly guilty of treason (a crime for which we generally have trials). What evidence supports that he is an "enemy combatant"? My understanding is that he was the English speaking propaganda mouthpiece for Al Qaeda - a treasonous, but not combative act.

At some level, I support the use of drone strikes to fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Bin Laden's own correspondence gives a good indication of how effective it is. However, I'd acknowledge at best that it is simply the "least bad option", not that it is somehow "legal" under an interpretation of international law on enemy combatants. If it's not legal, but yet it's the least bad option, we should be having the national dialog about what we have to change (law? constitution? treaties?) to make it legal, and force Congress, the President, and SCOTUS to take a real position, not a made up one.

[Orsino]

67. ...say the unnamed, unseen judge and executioner.

It might even be true, but I'm not inclined to believe the people who so badly botched the hit.

[geek tragedy]

69. No one is disputing that the two Gadahn and Farouq were members of Al Qaeda.

No one. Al Qaeda has been upfront that they were senior operatives.

It IS true. Sorry if that inconveniences your fauxtrage.

[Orsino]

72. Members who had done what to merit death, exactly?

[Action_Patrol]

79. Treason?

Literally assisting an enemy of the U.S.?

[Orsino]

81. Assisting how? n/t

[Action_Patrol]

85. If you join Al Qaeda in any capacity

Stenographer, house keeper, militant... And you are a U.S. Citizen, it's treason.

[Orsino]

88. According to whom?

And is standing too close to al-Qaeda a capital offense?

[Action_Patrol]

97. This is textbook.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Are you trolling me?

[Orsino]

104. It can't be textbook without a criminal case and evidence.

These things are conspicuously absent.

We are assured that two of the dead had once adhered to our enemies. Do we believe that? Do we believe that the drone even struck the intended site?

Do we believe that a criminal offense such as treason should warrant a death sentence when there was no trial? If so, what other offenses should be punished without due process?

Do we believe that a death sentence should be inflicted on everyone within a certain radius?

Should we accept the assurance of people who advocate for and commit extrajudicial executions?

[Action_Patrol]

106. Enjoy your outrage.

I've zero sympathy for anyone assisting Al Qaeda in any way.

[Orsino]

107. Would you have any sympathy for someone wrongly accused of assisting al-Qaeda?

Or for someone executed for being nearby?

I would...but my outrage is at the moment focused on a process that seems little more than fiat, excused by an undeclared war.

[Action_Patrol]

108. Wrongly accused?

I see nobody refuting that these people weren't legitimate allies of Al Qaeda.

I think it's a complete tragedy anytime an innocent person is killed. I don't believe in acceptable Collateral Damage.

As for an 'undeclared war', war authorization was voted on and approved. I believe that it needs to be revisited. I have a difficult time saying they the U.S. Doesn't have a reason to attack Al Qaeda.

[Orsino]

110. Well, for that we have the word of our government, which already executed several people...

...some of whom they say were guilty. The state of the state is such that they don't have to provide evidence for their assertions.

[Action_Patrol]

116. I don't believe they were there delivering pizza

But I understand your reservations.

[Orsino]

117. I don't either, not really.

I guess it just comes down to "until proven guilty" for me, wherever possible.

Dronekilling is so easy and carries so little risk to the wielder (as with the taser) that I feel it can't help but corrupt us.

[Action_Patrol]

118. Agreed and big hugs.

[NuclearDem]

112. One a propagandist and the other a second-in-command.

[Orsino]

113. So we are told. But what did they do, exactly?

In a trial, we might have found out. Instead, we may never know, or if we do, we may never have readon to believe the official story.

[NuclearDem]

114. Right, to be a propagandist and a second-in-command

you don't actually have to "do" anything.

[Orsino]

115. Well, you don't have to do anything to be accused of it.

And when the accusation comes from the executioner, we're supposed to furrow our brows and nod in agreement. I'm not comfortable with execution at all, as it is used to cover the tracks of some awful people--but execution without due process horrifies me.

[geek tragedy]

125. Al Qaeda said these guys held those roles. Heck, Gadahn himself said he held that role.

Their being full-fledged senior AQ operatives is not a matter of factual dispute outside of those looking for an excuse to complain about them getting themselves killed.

[Orsino]

139. Uh-huh.

"Holding roles" almost certainly falls under the definition of treason, and if so could be prosecuted.

[geek tragedy]

140. If they were in custody as opposed to traveling with

armed enemies in the theater of combat.

Under such circumstances, they get treated like every other member of AQ. No special treatment.

You know, the reality part of the equation.

[Orsino]

141. Reality is the problem.

We've accepted the excuse that due process is "special treatment," rather than a default.

[geek tragedy]

142. no, the problem is that "due process' is a very elastic concept that means VASTLY

different things when someone is in custody as opposed to in a freaking war zone embedded with the enemy.

When someone intentionally puts themselves into that situation in order to aid the enemy, the government is not obligated to cease all hostilities and do everything possible to make sure that not a single hair on their head is harmed.

Due process does not mean they get a magic force field around them banning the government from doing anything that might harm them, no matter where they are or what they are doing.

[Orsino]

143. You're quoting the law as currently applied (and withheld).

I'm just calling it a terrifying wrong.

[geek tragedy]

145. So, you believe that American citizens should be able to join armed enemies in a war zone

in order to assist that enemy's campaign of violence against the United States, and that in return the US government should be legally required to refrain from doing anything that might endanger the lives of those American citizens.

Such that, in the event that the enemy gets even one American citizen to join them, you would have the United States unilaterally concede defeat and retreat, allowing the enemy to declare victory.

Sorry if I do not join you in privileging American Al Qaeda members welfare above that of everyone else on planet earth.

[Orsino]

146. The only instances of privilege in ths equation are that of our government...

...in withholding due process that could be granted, and in our being smug about it.

[geek tragedy]

147. what due process would you require for those who are embedded with enemy forces?

Presumably you propose that we may not drop bombs on any enemy combat unit if there's an American with them, even if that American is there willingly in order to help them.

Thus, under your formulation of due process, Americans can shoot at American troops, help plan and execute armed attacks etc, and the US government has to do absolutely nothing in return.

[Orsino]

148. Some goddamned accountability, at a minimum.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380291/-Cartoon-Droney-weighs-in

Ideally, of course, criminal suspects ought to be arrested, charged and tried.

[geek tragedy]

149. that's not an answer. Arrest is not possible as they are embeded with an armed militia in a war zone

If arrest is not possible, what then?

Is your formulation that the government MUST NOT do anything that could harm them really plausible?

[Orsino]

150. Bullshit. We capture militants all the time.

It's only Droney who whispers to us of an easy way out.

It may even be true in any given instance that dronemurder saves American troops' lives. However, when the wielders of drones so badly fuck up a situational assessment that the lives of American civilians are lost, the whole process must be reevaluated...even if we can't muster any consideration for the lives of foreigners, or if we fear to put militants on trial.

Droney, as currently implemented, is very nearly the opposite of accountability. If there are reasons that this is the best we can do, they are all too easily concealed under the same umbrella of national security.

Arguing over the best way to fight this pseudowar, of course, is skipping the important question of whether it ought to be fought at all, much less whether it ought to create a zone where the rights of the accused are dismissed.

[geek tragedy]

152. There is no due process right to guaranteed safety while joining the enemy

in a war zone.

You are arguing for pacifism, not due process.

[Orsino]

155. So the law would have us believe. n/t

[geek tragedy]

156. you're free to invent your own definition that includes a free pony for every

terrorist who's in a war zone trying to kill Americans.

Doesn't mean it's accepted anywhere else.

The legal definition has been accepted with very good reason.

[Orsino]

158. Very good reason, indeed.

Big Money insists on it.

[JDPriestly]

17. Right to a trial is guaranteed in the Constitution.

You can make arguments that are sheer sophistry as to why that guarantee does not hinder the president in emergency, but these guys should unless impossible have been arrested, brought back to the US and tried for treason.

Doesn't work that way of course. But that would be the right way to handle the situation.

[JI7]

18. doesn't that apply to non US Citizens also ?

[JDPriestly]

20. Not during war.

Lincoln ordered the Union army to kill combatants.

People who join Al Qaeda can be viewed as combatants, as soldiers in an enemy army. That is why the sort of apology applies to the Al Qaeda captives only. The president has special authority during insurrection, so logically he would have it with regard to people who volunteer for Al Qaeda I think. That's my reasoning.

[geek tragedy]

42. Basically. When people join an armed enemy of the US

while in the theater of combat, the US isn't obligated to do everything possible to make sure no harm comes to them.

[still_one]

98. Agreed

[msanthrope]

23. There is no right to trial for non-custodial combatants. nt

[JDPriestly]

25. See my post #22. I think I am agreeing with you.

The problem is the hostages.

[msanthrope]

26. Yes....I think we are in agreement. As for the hostages, it's my understanding that the US had

no idea this is where they were being held, and the current investigations into this matter are going to center on why Pakistan intelligence, and our own CIA, did not know they were present.

[JDPriestly]

29. Very good.

It's interesting because the provision regarding treason requires a trial and two witnesses to find treason.

But habeas corpus can be suspended during an insurrection, and obviously a president as commander of chief during a war can order strikes on those fighting the US.

So, this is a very complicated matter and yet a very simple one.

[msanthrope]

30. The AUMF of 9/18/2001, pursuant to the War Powers Act, does not suspend habeas....the

gravamen here is that a custodial AQ combatant would have rights, but a non-custodial AQ member does not.

[JDPriestly]

31. Agreed.

[metalbot]

45. Who gets to decide who is a non-custodial combatant?

And how long does that designation last?

If the CIA puts you on a list, is that sufficient? If your neighbor tells authorities that you are a combatant, is that sufficient?

If you were once a combatant, what is the process by which someone stops being a combatant?

What are the criteria for being a combatant? Do you have to actually fire a gun or plant a bomb? Are you a combatant if you make propaganda for combatants? Are you a combatant if you supply food to combatants? If you shelter combatants in your basement, are you a combatant?

[geek tragedy]

61. Taking command roles of authority within Al Qaeda and physically joining Al Qaeda combatants

in the theater of combat makes a person a combatant.

When warships get sunk during armed conflict, the cooks and political officers (in the case of countries like Nazi Germany and the USSR) on board die as combatants.

It's very, very hard to come up with a definition of combatant that does not include Farouq.

A very simple way for Americans to avoid getting droned by the United States is DO NOT PHYSICALLY JOIN AL QAEDA IN THE FIELD AND PARTICIPATE IN THEIR WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

[msanthrope]

100. u.n resolution 1267 is a pretty good

list of active AlQeada operatives and some of their affiliates. if you've been stupid enough to get yourself on that list chances are you have a target on your back. if you're a resident of an AQ Camp chances are you have a target on your back. if you provide them material support you have a target on your back.

You don't stop being a combatant because Al Kaida has not surrendered. you can however become custodial.

[EX500rider]

105. ".....arrested, brought back to the US and tried for treason."

You mean send the US Marshals with a warrant to knock on the gate of the AlQueda base in no-mans land and ask them to come quietly? lol

Or does a SEAL Team have to kill their way in and out and lose guys and gunships to drag some already guilty parties back to the US for a show trial?

If you joined the NAZI's in WWII or the North Koreans during the Korean War do you really think they arrested you or just shot/bombed you on sight?

[JDPriestly]

120. See my post 22.

It's more complicated than that. I don't think the authors of the Constitution thought that Al Qaeda was a possibility. They thought in terms of pirates maybe, but not people who could fly planes into buildings.

[hack89]

144. Does that mean we cannot attack foreign fighters in their presence?

that in essence they become a shield protecting anyone around them from US attack? Because that is the logical conclusion if we can't attack Americans willing to join and fight with terrorist groups.

If they were in the NW Territories, then for all practical purposes arrest was impossible. We are talking about a region that not even the Pakistani government can control.

[JDPriestly]

153. No. See my post #22.

[hack89]

154. Sounds perfectly reasonable - thanks. nt

[Adrahil]

157. As I understand it, this was a "signature" strike...

.... Based on evidence that the target was an al-Qaeda camp, which it was. The strike was not directed at any particular there, as we did not know who was there at the time. As such, i don't think the rights of the two al-Qaeda operatives are in question in this case.

When deliberately targeting American citizens, its rather more complicated, of course, and due process becomes an issue. The question then is, is the process that IS used Constitutionally sufficient?

[closeupready]

3. It's just a stupid piece of paper, kpete. Look, I get it.

You think all that romantic "give me liberty or give me death"/due process/Bill of Rights stuff means what it says. You think our boys died on Omaha Beach in order to defeat tyranny. You think laws actually mean anything, or that the government which rubber-stamps laws is obligated to observe and respect and defend them.

Give me some of what you're smoking.

(Obviously, this is major )

[geek tragedy]

39. So you think they have the legal right to shoot at US servicepeople

without being shot at in return.

You would be incorrect. If one participates in armed conflict inside the theater of combat, it is perfectly legal to drop a bomb on them and their comrades in arms.

Waging war against the United States carries severe risks, which was their choice.

[woo me with science]

4. K&R The president of the United States has a "KILL LIST."

Think about that.

This is what corporate rule does to democratic, representative government.

It subverts it, in our name, into the moral and ethical sewer of a corrupt, authoritarian regime. Our government, perverted into a monstrosity of secret laws and secret courts and mass surveillance, in which the president of the United States of America has "KILL LISTS."

Good god. And shame on EVERY shill and apologist who takes a little paycheck to type apologism and attempts to normalize THIS, and the "double tapping" of first responders, and the targeting of children by drones, and the persecution of whistleblowers, and mass surveillance, and every other outrage we've seen coming out of what is left of our fake, corrupt, corporate-purchased democracy.

[msanthrope]

27. I'm pretty good with the President killing off Al Qaeda. And I agree with the widow of the US

hostage:

"Those who took Warren captive over three years ago bear ultimate responsibility," she added.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32426859

I think it's horrible Pakistan did so little to recover these men.

[still_one]

99. +++

[Maedhros]

128. Careful, someone might send an alert on your post.

Don't question the President's assumed right to kill anyone he declares an Enemy of the State.

[philosslayer]

5. At least they weren't waterboarded

[EX500rider]

6. If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it and nobody will raise a stink

I think you mean when you join the other side in a active war zone.

Adam Gadahn: Al-Qaeda's propagandist
He was known to the US for some years. In 2006, Gadahn became the first US citizen to be charged with treason since World War II. The indictment said he had "knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States... with intent to betray the United States". A $1m bounty was placed on his head.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32441864

[snooper2]

7. blogs are legit since 2007!

[babylonsister]

9. There are some peeps I don't consider Americans. Be gone!

I love digby, but please. I don't agree.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. and because you believe the way you do

An American citizen should be denied his Constitutional right of due process.

I see no difference between the above event and the unarmed African American man gunned down in the back by a cop a few weeks ago. Both were murdered by our government public servants without due process.

[PowerToThePeople]

14. i assume nothing

They were both American citizens
They were both killed by gov employees
They were both denied due process.

Thanks for your reply.

babylonsister
12. Fuck off. Way different senarios. YOU assume too much. nt

[elleng]

16. WAR!

Enemy combattants. Sorry.

[JDPriestly]

22. Habeas corpus can be suspended by the president in times of insurrection.

That's in the Constitution. Lincoln invoked it in the Civil War. When Americans join Al Qaeda, they can be said to be involved in an insurrection. The problem is with the coincidental killing of the hostages who were not involved in the insurrection.

Article I, section 9 -- the Suspension Clause

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

On the other hand, treason has to be proved by the testimony of 2 witnesses.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

We should have the right to a jury trial under the Fifth Amendment except during a time of war. So a person loses the Fifth Amendment right if he is at war with the US as Al Qaeda is.

I think the president could make a good argument that killing someone who joins Al Qaeda does not violate that person's right to due process because the person loses that right by joining an organization that is fighting a war on the US.

[gladium et scutum]

34. The Authority to Suspend

Habeas Corpus rests with the Congress of the United States. The President does not have the authority to suspend it.

[geek tragedy]

38. Habeas corpus is irrelevant in a theater of active combat.

Enemy combatants actively engaged in armed hostilities in the theater of combat have zero constitutional rights until they leave the hostilities by choice or by capture.

[gladium et scutum]

41. I understand that n/t

[metalbot]

46. Is Pakistan currently a theater of active combat?

Who gets to decide what constitutes a theater of active combat?

What is the process to "leave the hostilities" that would restore habeas corpus? Are there some forms you fill out at the post office?

[geek tragedy]

53. Af-Pak is considered a theater of combat.

Combatants decide where the theater of combat is.

Resigning from AQ and leaving its armed camps would be a pretty good way of withdrawing from hostilities.

Being a terrorist waging war on the US is a very dangerous job.

[metalbot]

78. I'm slightly confused

You argue:

"Enemy combatants actively engaged in armed hostilities in the theater of combat have zero constitutional rights until they leave the hostilities by choice or by capture."

Is the "theater of combat" relevant to that statement if you then further argue that "combatants decide where the theater of combat is"? It feels like you are arguing "We can kill you if you are in a theater of combat, and wherever you are is by definition a theater of combat".

"Being a terrorist waging war on the US is a very dangerous job."

I'm actually not arguing with the notion that we should be killing bad people (via drone or whatever means), not am I arguing that Adam Gadahn was not a terrorist. What I'm arguing with is the notion that it is really legal under our current system of laws. If our activities in Pakistan are legal, then what else would be legal under the same "rules"? The fair acknowledgement is probably "what we're doing isn't really legal, but we're going to do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do". That at least starts the dialog about codifying what it is that we and aren't willing to do as a nation, rather than disguising it under our current legal framework.

[geek tragedy]

82. If this guy were sipping capuccinos in a sidewalk cafe in Rome or Beirut, this would

have been illegal.

But, Afghanistan/Pakistan has been a theater of conflict since 2001. The Taliban/AQ operate freely across the border between the two countries, and stage attacks from this area on targets in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[metalbot]

109. What's the formal list of places that are theaters of combat?

And are those combatants not fair targets when they leave that formal list?

I don't disagree with either of your specific examples (nor specifically with this particular drone strike). What I'm concerned about is that we're essentially going down the Potter Stewart line of argument:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I feel like intuitively I know (and our government can know) when bad people should be killed, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that we can't actually articulate the rules for that.

[geek tragedy]

111. there is no law without facts.

there's no Napoleonic code provision on this, no formal list, so indeed it comes down to specific cases and facts and judgment.

But, the tribal areas of Waziristan that AQ uses as its strongholds and base of attacks certainly qualifies.

[msanthrope]

24. A non-custodial combatant killed in this manner has been given due process. You assume that

the due process for custodial and noncustodial persons is the same.

It is not.

[GGJohn]

48. They were not denied due process by the govt.

They knew they were wanted, they could have easily surrendered to US authorities and been tried on the charges, instead, they continued to participate in armed conflict against the US, they were enemy combatants, which makes it legal to drone their sorry asses.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. by George Bush era rules.

Sometimes I think DU forgets where the "war on terror" and the associated rules originated. Many past rules of engagement were tossed out by BFEE and we seem to just accept that they are truly appropriate to continue using. Bogles my mind.

[geek tragedy]

56. Bush didn't change the rules for enemies engaged in armed hostilities.

He changed the rules for enemies who had been captured.

It has always been the rule that those who take up arms and participate in armed conflict make themselves a legitimate target in that very same armed conflict.

There is no rule that Americans get to join foreign enemies waging war on the United States and have a magic ability to not face return fire.

[PowerToThePeople]

60. we have troops getting shot at in Pakistan now?

News to me.

This was not armed conflict, this was targeted assassination based on intel from the same people who claimed there was mushroom cloud potential from Sadam. Ya, trustworthy source there.

[geek tragedy]

64. So you are making up your own facts to justify your complaint that AQ was treated unfairly.

To the point you're claiming these individuals were the target (no evidence) and claiming that the Bush/Cheney operatives behind Iraq were now behind the targeting of these two terrorist enemy traitors.

Yes, it was a targeted operation against AQ members. But, there is no indication that these two terrorist enemy traitors were the specific target. If we know a group of guys is AQ, that's enough to drop a bomb on them.

There is no dispute as to whether these two were active members of Al Qaeda. None.

[PowerToThePeople]

73. honestly, you know what I question?

I question EVERY SINGLE THING That happened during the Bush years and every continuation of those actions.

I believe his Presidency was a coup on the United States. I believe him and his political partners are international war criminals. I believe they are thieves of the US treasury on a grand scale.

My posts are not in any way defending people at war with U.S., but have everything to do with my concerns of "why are we doing what we are doing?" Why are we continuing the actions started by war criminals and traitors?

[geek tragedy]

75. This is not Iraq. AQ are the ones who massacred 3000 people on US soil.

And would massacre 300,000 or 3 million if they could.

Should Obama have withdrawn US troops from Afghanistan faster? Very possibly that is true. Should we be getting out now? Absolutely.

Also keep in mind that Bush stopped paying attention to AQ so he could invade Iraq. The focus on eradicating AQ is a departure from Bush's policy.

[PowerToThePeople]

80. as was posted a couple days ago

(Not sure if it is acurate)

Bengazi has been investigated more than 9/11 was.

I am neutral in regards mostly, but still do not believe the story we know of 9/11 is the truth. This also falls under the "I question everything from the bush years" category.

[geek tragedy]

84. Well, you are certainly right to be skeptical that the whole truth has been told (it has not)

but at the same time that AQ was responsible is something that is accepted by every single member of Congress who has served from 2001 through today. It is also accepted by every governor, and every member of the executive branch with any significant authority regarding military, intelligence, or law enforcement efforts.

It has been accepted as true by every court hearing detainee cases.

[PowerToThePeople]

91. I can agree with this.

Not much more to say here I think other than,

"Fuck terrorists and fuck republicans, both want to destroy this country!"

[geek tragedy]

92. They share a lot of the same tacitcs--hostage-taking, suicide tactics, threats to harm others etc nt

[GGJohn]

63. And continued and escalated by President Obama.

It's always been legal to kill enemy combatants of America.

[Maedhros]

129. Gadahn was not a combatant - he was a propagandist.

He was not trained for combat, did not command troops, was not armed, was not on a battlefield.

He was declared a political Enemy of the State and was executed.

My mind boggles at how easily Americans can be trained to hate and to ignore human rights.

[JI7]

13. that's fucked up

[geek tragedy]

37. They were in the theater of combat in enemy ranks.

By choice.

When they actively participate in armed conflict, it's perfectly legal to kill them.

Not even ambiguous as Al-awlaki might have been.

[Renew Deal]

11. I count three Americans

The hostage and the two Al Queda guys. Where is the 4th?

[bananas]

19. And they covered it up for three months. nt

[Hulk]

21. I go to Germany and join Hitler's Nazi SS??

Does that mean I need to be captured, returned and stand trial because I'm a US citizen?

I don't get the outrage here. So I suppose now that ISIS is getting volunteers from all around the world to come join in on the slaughter, we need to separate the "American citizens" from the others so they can come back and stand trial?

Isn't this getting just a wee bit ridiculous?

[hfojvt]

28. because terrorists have rights

and America is evil.

Yeah, my vote is for ridiculous too. I expected better from Digby.

[Maedhros]

130. False analogy.

Criminals hiding in Pakistan are not at all the same as trained soldiers in the armed forces of a country with which we are at war.

The outrage is our President's assumed authority to kill anyone he deems an Enemy of the State without oversight, accountability or due process.

[struggle4progress]

32. Weird and incoherent outrage doesn't help us think clearly

It makes some moral sense to object to policies that rate the lives of hostages as less important than decisive retaliation against hostaghe takers -- but (unfortunately) decisive retaliation policies are quite popular, and until the public mood swings (or until someone has a creative new idea for protesting against such policies) that will be a losing political fight. Carter's policies got the Iran hostages home safely but cost him the 1980 election

And there are plenty of good reasons to oppose drone warfare -- but whenever drone warfare is possible, it will probably be more popular on the home front than boots-on-the-ground actions

Similarly, one can make sound arguments in favor of a criminal justice model of response against al-Qaeda-like organizations, as opposed to a military model of response; but there is a substantial Beltway consensus for the military model, which effectively means that the US officially considers a state of war to exist against al-Qaeda. So there is no right-to-trial in circumstances in contexts where US courts cannot exert their ordinary jurisdictional authority

However, the claim "If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it" is ridiculous nonsense

[Orsino]

33. I hope that drone is properly ashamed of itself for hoodwinking our president.

Goddammit. They are still selling us the "surgical strike" bullshit when we know the application of military force nearly always kills civilians.

I have to wonder how many non-American innocents were injured or killed in this attack, and how many others our government isn't yet admitting to in the attacks they are still keeping secret?

[geek tragedy]

36. They weren't the specific targets, just happened

to be hanging around other AQ filth when this happened.

As far as blame is concerned, the only good AQ operative is a dead one. We are at war with AQ. That means we get to kill them.

[tk2kewl]

43. ...andy anyone within a few hundred yards or so... oh well?!

BAN KILLER ROBOTS!

[geek tragedy]

50. Not unless they dropped daisy cutters nt

[tk2kewl]

51. because drones have pinpoint accuracy

it's just terrorism with bars and stars

[geek tragedy]

54. No, killing AQ is not terrorism. nt

[tk2kewl]

59. but killing innocents is...

have a look at the record re drones


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=who+gets+killed+by+drone+strikes

[geek tragedy]

68. the innocents that died here were not known to be present.

Moreover, I would be interested to see a breakdown of:

specific targets killed
non-targeted AQ/Taliban also killed
innocent civilians killed

The 1147 presumably includes the second and third categories.

Innocents do get killed in war. Hardly a circumstance unique to drones.

[tk2kewl]

70. fog of war is a great excuse

nope not unique.

killing innocent people is terrorism regardless of how its done. Drones just make it easier.

[geek tragedy]

74. no that's not the definition of terrorism.

terrorism has a very specific meaning, including a specific intent to target civilians for political purposes.

Reckless killing of civilians can be a war crime, without being terrorism.

[tk2kewl]

76. nice to see you have neat little boxes to sort the killings into

[geek tragedy]

77. there is nothing neat about this subject matter, but that doesn't mean

accuracy goes out the window

[tk2kewl]

83. Accuracy of what? My comments or drone strikes? I don't follow...

... and btw, if you think drone strikes and their collateral damage don't have deliberate psyops and political purposes then you are kidding yourself. It is terrorism run by the President, CIA and US military.

[geek tragedy]

87. Assertions without evidence are not much of an argument.

What "psyops" and "political" purpose would there be for Obama to intentionally blow up innocent children?

[tk2kewl]

94. really... you can't think of any on your own?

fear the flying death-bots... I'd be pretty intimidated if it was happening in my neighborhood.

[geek tragedy]

96. why would Obama care about intimidating goat herders in Pakistan? nt

[Whiskeytide]

89. My thoughts on all this are all over the place...

... but your statement that...

Innocents do get killed in war. Hardly a circumstance unique to drones.

... is spot on. If we have decided a target is appropriate for a strike, a S.E.A.L team insertion would not likely reduce the risk of civilian casualties caught in the crossfire. It would only increase the risk of US casualties.

I worry about the "sci-fi" future of drone policy/use. I worry about who's making the target selections now, and who may be making them in the future. And I worry about the criteria for labeling someone a drone-strike worthy enemy of the state (if the state becomes a corporate state, and I gripe about corporations, .... uh oh).

But a drone is a weapon. Used in a war. And weapons kill people in the war theater. It sucks. But it's sucked since our species rose from the primordial muck and began to make war.

[geek tragedy]

95. there are a few issues specific to drones--especially w/r/t operators not being

in the military chain of command.

But, yeah, before there were drones there were "smart" bombs and Tomahawk missiles. Before that there were dive bombers and B-52s.

[PeteSelman]

47. If you join al-Queda you're no longer an American.

You've forfeited any rights or privileges being an American gives you.

Fuck them.

[Maedhros]

131. The Constitution limits the actions of our government, it doesn't provide privileges to citizens.

Doesn't matter if a person is a citizen or not, our government is still bound by the law.

[PeteSelman]

135. Didn't limit anything from my perspective.

Those two assholes are still dead along with Al-Awaki, his asshole son and other traitors.

I hate no problem with killing terrorists.

[PowerToThePeople]

136. I smell something

[div class="excerpt"PeteSelman
135. Didn't limit anything from my perspective.
Those two assholes are still dead along with Al-Awaki, his asshole son and other traitors.

I hate no problem with killing terrorists.

I see you link the blaze as a source for some of your posts.

[PeteSelman]

137. Oh really super sleuth?

Please.

Just because I have no sympathy for terrorist assholes doesn't mean I'm not committed to progressive economic and social issues.

The blaze?

[Maedhros]

138. Enjoy your hate!

/ignore list.

[cwydro]

49. Disgusted by Obama on many levels now.

This drone nonsense is one of the worst.

We are creating new enemies everyday. He's as bad as Bush, imo.

Yes, I voted for him. Twice.

I'm bitterly disappointed.

[geek tragedy]

57. So you think we should drop flowers and love letters on Al Qaeda?

It is idiotic gibberish to say he is as bad as Bush because he killed AQ members waging war against the United States.

[cwydro]

62. My post was clearly written.

I'm so very sorry you find it to be "idiotic gibberish" because you disagree.

Gotta love how posters immediately go into personal attack mode when someone disagrees with them.

You must be great fun around the office.

Bye now. Have a blessed day

[geek tragedy]

65. Oh, I work in a very sane environment where people do not say idiotic nonsense

like "Obama is as bad as bush" because he was mean to the poor sweet innocent souls in Al Qaeda.

I happen to have a more favorable view of the President than I do of George W Bush or Al Qaeda.

I do not think members of Al Qaeda who get killed before they can do further harm are 'victims' and I have zero sympathy for them.

You are free to disagree.

[cwydro]

121. Now who is writing gibberish lol?

Where did I say any al queda targets were victims.

Once again, you try to insult.

That is sad.

[geek tragedy]

122. you said you were 'disgusted' at the news of two senior AQ operatives being killed nt

You also said this news that two senior Al Qaeda operatives had been killed means Obama is "no better than Bush."

You are obviously upset and feel a great injustice and crime has been committed against these two senior AL Qaeda operatives.

So, how would you not view them as victims?

[TeeYiYi]

55. Turncoats don't have special protections.

If you join the enemy, you take your chances.

TYY

[Maedhros]

132. In a declared war, yes.

The United States is not at war.

[elias49]

66. "We killed some folks..."

[PoliticAverse]

71. Why am I seeing headlines that say 4 Americans were killed when one was an 'Italian National'?

[seabeyond]

86. 3 americans, two al qaeda. as i read. and ya, i see a difference between hostage or innocent,

and an al quaeda operator.

seems to be an odd article to me.

[MineralMan]

102. Probably because the poster did not actually read the article.

In it, one of the people was identified as an Italian National, not an American. Two were identified as Al Qaeda operatives, as well. So, one American hostage died in this attack, but it sounds worse if the title of the post is "Four Americans killed."

Reading is FUNdamental, it seems to me.

[still_one]

93. I guess it depends how one views AQ

[Spider Jerusalem]

101. Two of those were legitimate targets.

Unless you want to start talking about how many Americans Grant and Sherman killed.

[MineralMan]

103. You wrote this:

"If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad they can do it and nobody will raise a stink."

That may be true if you're a enemy combatant or leader in an armed conflict. But that's the only time it's true. Most Americans abroad do not meet that definition, as I'm sure you know. There was also an American hostage along with an Italian hostage killed, but not because our government wanted to kill those hostages. In fact, President Obama was very sorry that happened, and said so very clearly. We apparently did not know they were present.

Even worse, you got your post title wrong. Perhaps you didn't actually read the article you posted closely.

The U.S. Government is not killing American citizens who are abroad willy-nilly. Your quote above is incorrect, and badly so. Here's a more correct statement:

"If your government wants to kill you when you're abroad and are acting as an enemy combatant or leader, they can do it and nobody will raise a stink."

[geek tragedy]

124. in fairness, that was from the blog post he was quoting nt

[MineralMan]

127. In fairness, the CNN link is at the top of the post.

As I said, I don't believe the poster bothered to actually read the article. When there are multiple links, I go to the news link, not a blog. I want to see the original story.

[questionseverything]

151. you said, We apparently did not know they were present.

this is a huge part of what bothers me about this....if current admin is to be believed, we did not know much about who was there at all...they didnt know about the hostages or the american citizens

that kind of makes it willynilly, especially after the droning of the teenage citizen trying to find his father

i understand due process being eliminated during times of war except now the entire world seems to be "our battlefield"

if current admin is gonna send killer flying robots out,i would like him to know who the heck is being targeted

[bigtree]

119. not to mention other important lives destroyed

...'collateral' killings of innocents - men, women, children - in almost countless other drone strikes abroad.

[geek tragedy]

123. that's a much more compelling concern--the hundreds of Pakistanis who didn't deserve

to die as opposed to the two Americans who did.

The bitter irony is that one American innocent and one Italian innocent draw much more outrage and scrutiny than hundreds of those who were born in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[DonCoquixote]

126. There may be many innocents

but Azzam Al-Amiriki, the person Adam Gahan became as he advocated killing, is not one of them.

[Maedhros]

133. Not innocent, but still deserving of due process.

The defendants in Brandeburg v. Ohio also advocated killing, yet the court found in their favor.

[Blue_Tires]

134. Because two were AQ, and their deaths are actually a GOOD thing?