HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It seems to me that the &...

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:06 PM

It seems to me that the "drone" discusssion is being muddled.

The heinous part of this whole affair to me is not the weapon being employed, but the extrajudicial killing of US citizens by an Executive Branch that claims this right by fiat.

It would be even MORE inflamatory if they were using live, in-person soldiers and airmen to do the killing. The fact that the weapon being used happens to be a remote control drone is meaningless.

4 replies, 444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply It seems to me that the "drone" discusssion is being muddled. (Original post)
Marr Feb 2013 OP
RC Feb 2013 #1
jeff47 Feb 2013 #2
Marr Feb 2013 #3
jeff47 Feb 2013 #4

Response to Marr (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:08 PM

1. Correct. The very fact we are doing this.

 

It should not matter how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:26 PM

2. It's still muddled.

1) US citizens have no special due process rights. The due process rights in the Constitution apply to all people within US jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. So being up in arms solely because a US citizen was attacked is wrong - legally they're due the same due process as any other human being.

2) The Constitution doesn't apply outside US jurisdiction. If we invaded Yemen and captured the target, they would be under US jurisdiction and have due process rights - US troops capturing them puts them under US jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. But if it's a missile launched from an aircraft into Yemen, they are not under US jurisdiction. They are under Yemeni jurisdiction and legally it's up to Yemen to protect them. Yes, I fully realize that Yemen has no ability nor desire to do so.

You're free to feel that it's the wrong thing to do. But it's still legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:41 PM

3. No, sorry.

The United States government is not a wholly unchained beast outside the physical borders of the country. It is always bound by the limits of the Constitution, no matter where it happens to be operating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 06:42 PM

4. Reading. It's helpful.

The United States government is not a wholly unchained beast outside the physical borders of the country.

US jurisdiction is not US geographic boundaries. As I explicitly mentioned, US troops capturing a target brings that target under US jurisdiction, wherever they are. In addition, US troops are always under US jurisdiction wherever they are located. On the other hand, their targets are not under US jurisdiction.

It is always bound by the limits of the Constitution, no matter where it happens to be operating.

If this was correct, US soldiers would have to give due process rights to enemy troops in war - they're people, and have the same due process rights under the Constitution as US citizens.

In addition, if your theory was correct, we would have to rescue any US citizens arrested by France - they have no equivalent to the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. By your theory, the US government would have to intervene to protect those rights.

But neither of those examples are true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread