Future U.S. Drone Base in Africa: SOF Perspective

 @ArcticWarrior  I'm not so turned off about the age of laws.  The constitution is over 200 years old, 10 commandments 3000?.  Values and principles are timeless.

i'm all for protecting Americans but when they join the enemy in a time of war habeus  corpus doesn't apply.  We didn't have the court involved in deciding if Sherman could march to the sea.

Don't get me wrong.  There should be a process where an American is declared an enemy combatant.  Does there have to be a civil court?  No, it is a war and the military should be making the decision.  Maybe as a fuirther protection it should apply strictly to OCONUS but I have a bad feeling that AQ is going to eventually recruit a blonde blue eyed stateside terrorist.  Small numbers can be treated as an internal security/police type problem.  

 @majrod

 That was the angle I was leaning towards, this Lawfare thing as written is a quagmire. Again we are using 19th and 20th Century laws and trying to rationalize a 21st Century solution.

As far as my concern with the White Paper policy is one man is judge, jury and executioner of an American. Im not a big fan of that. As far as foreigners too bad, you took up arms against us, no Constitution for you! ( Yes I distinguish that one American shitbag is worth more then a foreign shitbag, I am the Ugly American )

In the end, the Constitution remaining relevant is my biggest concern above all else. Seems its under attack from multiple fronts simultaneously.

 @ArcticWarrior  I wouldn't disagree with Mexico.  They have that right.  We also have the right to take out the Mexican drone base, drone factory, missile depots and anything else we feel is the equivalent to five American lives.

(the enemy's "vote" is the only reason we aren't in Syria today vs. how we dealt with Libya.)

Your example misses an absolutely key difference.  Countries we are conducting operations in are either unable or unwilling to take action.  If we allowed a violent organization to operate from our territory we are in fact responsible for that organization.  If we wanted to press it we could make the case that Pakistan is at war with us because of their inaction in the tribal areas. 

Food for thought.  

Consider Mexico's largely ineffective campaign against Cartels and how those cartels are killing Americans...

I'm not promoting war with Mexico.  Diplomacy and aid might be the way to go.  Politics as usual but war is just another form of politics.

 @majrod

 No not in too many instances, he really didnt touch on the American citizen angle, which may be why Dub didnt really go after that angle with any zeal.

 Yoo laid it out especially about the Article II powers. The President has the ultimate and final say on Military operations, that is his Constitutional right.That cant be argued, its pretty cut and dry and the SCOTUS has usually ruled in the Executives favor even going back as far as pre 1900. His views on the WPR are, as written, fairly even keeled. His footnotes are just as good as his opinions body.

However that opinion was written in 2001, lot of water under the bridge and technology has expanded our reach.

What troubles me is they can amend any article in the Constitution yet they make no effort, makes you wonder why. Why are they avoiding putting it to a legal and Constitutional public debate? ( On a side can you imagine if Dub had engaged in this policy, how the press would howl? )

 I have no problem with drone attacks and the apparatus needs to move quickly, that cant be disputed, however I find the lack of oversight the most dangerous of all.

I was given the follow scenario. In 2017 The MX Govt has a HVT DTO member on its list. Said member is discovered to be in Arizona, just over the border. Said HVT is known to be an imminent threat to MX with Intel showing he will launch some kind of attack on MX troops. The Mexican Navy operating a drone fires a missle into US territory from MX airspace. The HVT is killed, yet 5 American citizens are also killed. How does the US go about handling the situation? MX claims the legal precedence has been established and was well within its rights to protect itself and did not need to consult with the US beforehand. You get 10,000 words to offer an opinion or dissent of the legality.

Im still thinking.....

 @ArcticWarrior  Was there something you disagreed with in Yoo's opinion?

Thanks for the link.  It's useful.

 @majrod

 I read both of them. The White Paper itself seems reverse engineered to provide for the answer before the questions were asked.

And yes Article II does grant him broad powers as CiC.

The problem with the policy as written is its based on 10 year old opinion as written by John Yoo when he was DAAG. Not much new in the White Paper. Its taking a 20th Century approach to a 21st Century problem. Lawfare. Again we are on the same page just differing by a few degrees. The program needs to be reworked with oversight.

Here is Yoo's opinion from 2001

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

 @PatrioticCitizen I like your points but they do seem a bit dour and pessimistic. I'm not trying to put you down as one could argue that they are realistic/authentic as well.

Just keep in mind that you can't come in all guns blazing. It puts up a defensive response. We don't like hostiles, bro. They get reduced, QUICK! Ease into this site and you'll do alright!

 @PatrioticCitizen  @StormR "We were not sucked into this ancient war , we put ourselves there when we decided to become a key player in Afghanistan when we decided backing the Holy warriors the Mujahadden wage Jihiad on the Soviets. We created this mess by Reagan and his cronies withdrawing all foreign aid after that war came to a close ....So the extremist naturally came to power and now you have the mess that we have today ..that is the short version of it anyway. "

Those are half-truths. "Reagan and his cronies", so Charlie Wilson is the tragic hero after all rather than an clever opportunist? That's just talking in platitudes and I don't mean to insult.  I don't think that your as well read on this topic as you think, I say this because I have only scratched the surface myself and am equally misinformed in some regards. Sometimes it takes one to spot one. Again, I like what you're bringing to the table but don't feel you appreciate the caliber of people that we have here. 

 @PatrioticCitizen  Dude, dumping the problems and instability of the Middle East in the laps of Carter and Reagan is ridiculous. They may have added fuel to that fire but that region was formed as it is now after the devastation that both French and British imperialism brought to it before World War 1. No, I'm with Storm on this one. The regional instability is not the sole franchise of the United States... NOT BY A LONG SHOT. Ever heard of the BRIC?

 @StormR  You should have put quotes around the word "discovered" ;-) We know that there were folks here long before the Vikings, English, Chinese and Portugese. :-)

 @StormR You really need go back and examine the Carter adminstration's and the Reagan years when it came to how they dealt with this part of the world ...and then tell me we had no hand in destabilizing this region in our fear of the Soviets at the time. 

 @PatrioticCitizen  It's on record that OBL's goal by the 911 attack was to get the US to go to war and attack - and his goal was accomplished.  "We" didn't create a mess...it was a mess long before Columbus discovered America.

 @StormR  @HugeFan Stormy, it's a fact we couldn't get along without these great mods (HF) keeping overwatch.  Thanks, HF and will issue a lil apology here myself to you.  <G>  Nobody said your job was easy!

 @HugeFan  @StormR you are right we will let history sort out the true facts as it often does either one way or another and just leave it at that.

 @PatrioticCitizen  @HugeFan  PC, you weren't blunt or rude..just kind of deaf.   I strongly urge you to stick around, read the articles and in particular, wade through all the comments.  I guarantee you will be astonished at the depth and breadth of knowledge, informed opinion, coupled with a great deal of book-learning and real-life experiences to be found here.  SOFREP is a very unique place.  There is a diversity of thought and experiences that greatly enrich the conversations AND one's own learnings.  There are many men and women on this site who have been-there-done-that in wars from Vietnam on.  There are leaders, intelligence specialists, and individuals from every SOF - former and current.  And there civilians equally knowledgeable in their field and historians and analysts.  And then there are civilians like me...a bear of little brains, somewhat affectionately tolerated because of my desire to learn about the broader world and the broader view.  If you are as willing to listen as you are to contribute, you will walk away richer for it.

 @Txazz  @HugeFan   Hugs, Tx.   In truth, HF made a really good point.  He saw a potential blow-up and stepped in before that happened.  He does know me :)  and he saw where it could lead.   And in truth, you're right :) :)   The fact is that I would rather he step in and tell me I'm getting too emotional instead of rolling his eyes and muttering under his breath, "oh chit, there she goes again".  He was stopping me from embarrassing myself and making a mess.   But, you're right :) :)

 @HugeFan  @StormR HugeFan, Women are the balance - counter - point.  Stormy should not have to be less emotional as she calmly states her opinion which is quite a wonderful thing.  I didn't see her throwing anything.  PatrioticCitizen is new here and is making assumptions about what she knows or doesn't know about geography when in fact, she might be more knowledgeable than he is in relation to current events. 

You know we always welcome new opinions and conversations however, he might do like many of us - listen and read for a couple of months or at least weeks before posting.  After all, who was it that accused Stormy of quoting Fox. pahhhhhh!

All I suggest, if I may is that PC become acquainted with the members before he keeps pushing his position - not opinion in relation to the conversations.

Just my 2 lil ole cents worth.

 @HugeFan  but, but, but......I like my lense better than his lense.  My lense matches my sparkly red tennis shoes.    Seriously - for just a second or two - what you are asking me to do is not to be me.  I do understand where you are coming from with this and respect you greatly for it.   And i agree that as a general rule this site is not a place for for emotional responses and emotions are not welcome here  (outside of our losses), and they often lead to big fat messes.  But HF, I lead by the heart, simple as that.  I have a pretty good head my shoulders, but my nature has always been and will always be 'to feel it'.  Cross my heart, I swear I will keep a check on it and when I feel 'emotional' about something, I will either not engage at all or withdraw immediately.  I've been actively working on that since the last time you told me I was emotional over something.  You're a great mod...no practice needed :) 

 @StormR " I will try harder to be a rational, emotionless poster - in other words, I will try not to be me :) " Now that's a cop out! :-) I was merely suggesting that you view it through a different lense. Your back and forth with PC has actually been thoroughly enjoyable and I think that you guys probably have more in common than not! I was just trying to relearn how to be a mod. :-)

 @HugeFan Interpretation is all in the eye of the beholder, and I'll leave it at that.  And i do recognize the 'don't you think you're too emotional' question lol   I will try harder to be a rational, emotionless poster - in other words, I will try not to be me :)

 @StormR No ding, just a nudge in the right direction. I would read that quote a few more times. I don't think it has the malice that you think. That said, yep I saw your comment and you withdrew. Consider it then for another time. :-)

 @HugeFan  "But when you talk about how many kids in America will sleep safe tonight is a cop out , you cannot trade one child's life for another."

No need to ding me, HF...I already withdrew from the conversation and stated so :)

 @StormR  @PatrioticCitizen Easy Stromy! :-) See Patriot, she picked that name for a reason. That lady has passion! You make good points but poking the bear can be a bad idea. Get to know us a bit, interact with the actual sailors, soldiers, airman, and Marines that visit here. You'll find much more (reliable) information about what is going on in Africa and the Middle East than anywhere else. Just open your mind a little bit more. I'm a passionate fan of debate as well. Let's begin! :-)

 @PatrioticCitizen  @StormR "...but I am sorry I have buddies who have served in Iraq who have told me that was not always done when it came to our regular military." That's not fair to use that as a form of credible information. I have friends too and none have been able to confirm what your "buddies" state. Maybe stick with what is public knowledge, yes?

 @PatrioticCitizen   "It is a complex and difficult enterprise but first you have to realize sadly terrorism has been in existence in some form or another since the beginning of civilization ..The idea of you will wage a war on it is like waging a war on crime  ...it will just not happen unless you institute incredibly extreme repressive totalitarian methods. You have to do something , but you just have to be careful in how you do it , Example in the war on crime is this silly notion that let's not enforce the gun laws we have , just make new ones that threaten the Constitutional rights we all hold so dear. A war on anything as abstract as crime , drugs , corruption or terrorism , is a war that will only fail in the long run.As Benjamin Franklin said : he who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. "

It's the "being careful" part that manifests itself in government bureaucracy and ends up making military leaders risk-averse. However, I completely agree with the rest of that paragraph.  

 StormR: I didn't see the part where PC assumed that he/she knew how you felt about children dying. I think that this argument became a tad bit too emotional for you, no?

 @PatrioticCitizen "But everything you have just told me just sounded like propaganda off Fox news instead of any real hard facts."  This is really funny, really funny.   I'm one of only about 3 Liberal regular posters on SOFREP.  It's the first time I've been accused of right-wing propaganda.  And I've been voting since 1968 (do the math) and have always paid very close attention to America's domestic and foreign policy.  I see all of her warts, wrinkles and screw-ups, but she's still my motherland.  I talk to guys who served in Iraq & A-stan as well - either family members or here on the site.  

You've got a position, not opinions.  There are some extremely knowledgeable people on SOFREP, with personal experience and far-ranging expertise, and extraordinarily knowledgeable about the region.  Maybe they will come talk to you :)   I'm out.

 @PatrioticCitizen First, you don't know me, so you don't get to make assumptions about how I feel about ANY child dying.  But another reality is that one can't reason with fanatics.  One can't reason with those who have a cause.  One can't reason with one who doesn't want to reason.  The US is only a bit player in the larger war going on in the Middle East; and that war is disguised as a religious war - but it's a war for power.  The US became a lovely artificial target to unify some of the factions.  I don't for a moment believe that the US policy-makers have clean hands in the region, and I also recognize that the primary purpose of 911 was to sucker the US into the war.  But there are lines that are drawn, and spilling American blood on our homeland crossed the fundamental line.  Once that occurred, 'my' priority focus was simple - ensure it NEVER happened again.  Our warriors don't take their women and children into battle.  Our warriors don't hide behind innocent civilians and their women and children.  All those children lost by drones were lost because a member of their family placed them in a physical place that was dangerous, and for JUST THAT FACT ALONE they should be sent straight to hell.  To my mind this war is not about winning - there was never ground to win or an identifiable enemy to defeat.  This war is about ensuring that my homeland is never successfully attacked again.  The US cannot solve Middle East problems.  We are not a player in the manuevering that is going on, nor should we be.  We cannot build  or rebuild a nation that doesn't exist.  Our warriors already take more care not to harm the children than their own parents and communities do, and our warriors are bleeding and dying because of it.  Are we making more enemies...absolutely.  This is a fight that we didn't start, have no control over and certainly can't win - because it was never 'our' fight to begin with.  So, do I grieve for those innocent children lost - yes.  I also grieve for the innocent children lost in America every single day because as a nation we are not taking care of our children.  I grieve for the children of warriors being raised without mothers and fathers.  And I grieve for OUR lost warriors, all of whom are someone's child.  But I am not willing to spill one more drop of American blood than absolutely necessary and if that means using drones, then so be it.  I can live with that.

 @PatrioticCitizen And how many American children sleep safe in their beds tonight because a drone took out the men planning their deaths and destruction?

@oldSquid  "Enemy combatants are enemy - not criminals."

That was worth saying again.

One should meditate on why some insist on treating terrorists as criminals...   It affords clarity in understanding why the gov't is the way it is and why things happen that go beyond the pale e.g. Benghazi, Maj Hasan, releasing state secrets and the corresponding investigations.

 @ArcticWarrior

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior I agree with your last paragraph above wholeheartedly Majrod. To my l'il ol' peabrain, it seems, that if you join the enemy of this Country and take up arms against it ( as in the case of AL-Awlaki - and others prior to) and profess that fact, then quite simply (peabrain again) you are a traitor and enemy of this Country and your Citizenship is forfeit.

Enemy combatants are enemy - not criminals.

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior coming to this late and trying to catch up. but this little fact puts a whole new twist on it, doesn't it? Heard an FBI agent interviewed this morning talking about killing Americans that paticipate in AQ ot Taliban. Seems he and the commentator had no idea about this. Comment was made, well, the whole problem would be made easier if we just strip their citizenship... ignorance runs rampant...

 @majrod  Point taken.  However, I doubt that Joe American gets to sit around the campfire with his new AQ buddies without having to prove his new allegiances.   

I understand that he's not going to send a certified letter to the White House.  :)

@ArcticWarrior 

 @majrod  @TKW406

 Agreed

 @TKW406  American traitors in effect saying "Drone Me" by renouncing citizenship.

 @ArcticWarrior

 @ArcticWarrior  Congress has a responsibility to write laws.  The Pres has a responsibility to lead it in times of war.

Not going to happen here.  Executive decisions that can be kept secret are much more politically palatable.  I'm personally disgusted by the lack of discussion.  Much of the reason behind why Afghanistan is becoming less popular is because the President has abdicated his responsibility for explaining its importance.  On the other hand the administration will publicize state secrets to enhance his popularity.

Effing incredible.  We're becoming a banana republic.

@TKW406

@Surf375  “Would you agree though that this is something that can just as easily be stopped much like other gov't programs in the past? Was Exec. Order 12333 effective then? Are we by-passing FISA warrants still these days?”

Can this be easily stopped.  Sure.  All the Pres has to say is stop.  What’s your point?  Are we supposed to trust that a Pres will stop so it’s ok until then?

BTW, EO 12333 is in effect.  http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf

 @majrod Sorry - what announcement Major?

 @ArcticWarrior 

 @TKW406  But how public would that announcement be?

 @ArcticWarrior

 @ArcticWarrior  As always, I appreciate the input. 

 @TKW406  @majrod

 True, you cant cherry pick which parts of the Constitution you want to adhere to.

The Congress can put forth laws and/or ammendments to better reflect the realities of the modern world. In one aspect we are fighting the WOT with last centuries laws and rules, something other then the Executive Branch's plan using the whole presumption that any evidence is genuine and accurate needs to be created.

More and more I think I would like to see Military Tribunals using the "Party to the conflict" definition applied to rogue US citizens. A Court could be stood up based on the structure of The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

 @ArcticWarrior  @majrod  I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to look at an issue w/ purely subjective eyes.  The elimination of emotion & personal experience is not easy to do.  The simple truth is that we cannot pick & choose which Constitutional rights we want to fight for.  It's all or nothing.

 @ArcticWarrior  @majrod  It's just a damn tough issue for me as I see many positive arguments on both sides.  Every American citizens deserves to have their citizenship respected but if a citizen decides to basically declare war on their own country then there should be consequences.

And before anyone even begins typing.........I can fully see & understand the flip side of what I just said.  Please don't pounce!! 

 @ArcticWarrior AW, there was a much earlier piece called "As long as the river runs" that was much less fit for public consumption and better depicted what it was like, with a lot of actual footage.  It can't be found today, outside of the CD's the filmmaker gave to the folks who were there...and she did that many years later.  My CD is lost somewhere - I don't remember who I lent it out too.  That is the one that I would share with you, if possible.  This documentary does a good job of showing the evolution and ndn attitude then and now - which really isn't much different :)

 @TKW406  @majrod

 If Renunciation takes place, you are no longer a citizen and fair game. If you are a US Citizen first you need to be indicted, then tried and sentenced, its not that hard to do. America is a Nation of Laws, there is no "Terrorism" exemption in the Constitution. If sentenced to death after trial then Hellfires away.

The current policy is very dangerous and ripe for abuse as there is zero oversight.

 @ArcticWarrior  @Surf375  I wrote a longish piece on my thoughts on drones, citizenship and law...and then apparently hit the wrong button and it all went away.   I recognize a 'sign' when I see one, so the short version is:  Yes, No, and who writes the laws?

 @ArcticWarrior  Agreed and if that person 1) freely chooses to switch   2) verbally renounces citizenship and   3) takes up arms against America  then is there still a problem with surprising him w/ a  JDAM? 

@majrod 

 @TKW406  @majrod

 I would think for one is the PR of an American being involved. The old "See one of your own rolls with us, he is just like you, come on board and win one for the team"

I would imagine the vetting process to being an American with any kind of standing in AQ requires some real initiation.

 @ArcticWarrior  @majrod  Based on how much hatred AQ & similar groups have for America; wouldn't they require any American wishing to "switch teams" to renounce any & all allegiances to  America?  i.e. citizenship?

 @ArcticWarrior  @StormR  @Surf375 loved it - I have been offsides ever since Sat and the news.  I really mess up.

 @ArcticWarrior  @StormR  @Surf375 dear dear, yes, find that one - I lived it.

 @Txazz  @StormR  @Surf375

 I lost it when I put the black memorial box on, I have to find it on one of my memory card back ups

 @ArcticWarrior  @StormR  @Surf375 Hey, AW, you're back to your old avi.  :/

 @Txazz  @Surf375  TX....to me, one of the most amazing things about the state is the difference on each side of the mountain range, and the abundance of islands here.  I like Everett :)

 @StormR  @Surf375

 Come on Stormy if I can juggle rolling pins while wearing a pakol with a Miller Beer can on my head then Im sure you can support your opinion with the same fervor as anyone else  ; )

 @StormR  @Surf375 Stormy, I lived in Everett, WA for awhile and the views defy words.  I had close friends for many years who lived in Wenachee on the other side of the MT.  In Everett I lived right on the bay as well.

 @StormR  OT in regards to your doc which is wrapping up

"We all knew where the Courthouse steps were" - that quote certainly applies to the topic at hand

 @majrod  @Surf375

 One of the major arguments within the "5 Families" during the Brasco era was that the Govt was the biggest gang of all. It was in nobodys interest to have them involved.

 @ArcticWarrior  @Surf375  AW, of course I've formed an opinion :)   I just can't support my opinion as you all can, so I'll listen and either flesh it out with some backbone behind it, or rethink it. 

 @Surf375 1L,2L?

About frivilous.  Some gangbangers consider cops just another gang and in many ways they are (e.g. colors, fight to get in, carry a gun, protect each other etc.).  I don't think that description does justice to law enforcement or the issues though it goes far in deligitimizing the police and making important issues seem minor. 

 @Surf375  @majrod Surf, sometimes you kinda throw me off.  I realize you are coming from LE perspective and perhaps that makes a diff sometmes.  I carefully have to read your posts to really get your drift to decide whether I agree or not. Also, who are you addressing?  I admit I've lost who in these conversations said those things.

Yepper, as long as we stick with the constitution, we'll be in agreement.

I thoroughly enjoy these conversations and bright minds which cause more thinking. Always appreciate the comments.

 @StormR  @Surf375

 Nahhh its not over your head...Im fairly certain you understand and have formed an opinion. The Govt would like for us to all think its over our heads, but its not.

 @Surf375  @majrod

 Unfortunately the Leaglish being thrown around is a part of the dance. We could easily do it in street talk but that would be too straightforward, the vagueness of "imminence," "feasibility," and "undue risk" is by design, which shows how shaky the Executives lawyers think the policy is.

 @majrod  

" I'm also disturbed that you refer to this as a "gov't program".  We aren't handing out food stamps here.  Just a term but it makes killing people including Americans sound frivilous. "

Sorry, I'm no Frank Luntz. As for frivilous, ask any 1L or 2L and they'll tell you these things can be argued either way. The legal aspect is interesting, but the politicizing, frankly, is in fact frivolous, IMHO.

 @ArcticWarrior  @Surf375   This discussion be over my head, AW, so I'll just listen and hopefully learn.

 @majrod  

" Apologize for my tone but I'm having trouble getting past your haphazrd treatment of the law, the constitution etc.  Using terms like "popularity contest" and such is more akin to a discussion about TMZ. "

Sorry, I'm just keeping it real. We all know 99% of this is legal mumbo jumbo and lawyers will argue either way and laws will be amended. As for popularity contest, this how it goes, slavery was popular, then it wasn't and the laws reflect this, same with the civil rights movement, right--so, popularity does play a role in all this.

I'm with AW, it's a different war, laws and public perceptions just need to catch up.

 @Txazz  @ArcticWarrior Tx, this is a documentary of the PNW Fish Wars and where the tribes are today.  It won't be fun to watch, but it's a piece of history.  There was an earlier documentary that was much starker, so this is a bit of sequel to it.  It is being played in museums around the nation.

major...haven't been able to read the article yet, been a busy day (real life interferring with Sofrep- the nerve!).  I definitely will though....I am in agreement on what you are saying (re: stripping citizenship), that it (drone strike) should be in the realm of warfare--I'm good with military tribunals- the program just needs some type of oversight (judical or military judical), -just wasn't saying it concisely... 

 @Surf375  I'm about 45 minutes south of Seattle.  From the front deck I look to at Commencement Bay (with some large Port cranes messing up the view).  From the backyard, I see Mt. Rainier.  From the side, I look at a mountain range.  From the other side, I see a house :)   An hour drive (depending on direction) can get me to the Pacific Coast, as far up a volcano as one can drive, and a mountain river.   It's home.

 @StormR  @ArcticWarrior If you don't mind I'll snag it, too.  I love these stores told by the story tellers.

 @ArcticWarrior  AW:  This is OT, but was just released.  It's where it all began for me.  Sorry for posting it, here..but was the only way to get it to you.

http://vimeo.com/58718115

 @Surf375  Exec Order 12333 doesn't apply to the conversation unless one is one of the confused that thinks counter terror ops are primarily law enforcement type operation and criminal law applies and in that case we are violating Ecex Order 12333.  Killing people in the absence of war IS assasination.

I'm also disturbed that you refer to this as a "gov't program".  We aren't handing out food stamps here.  Just a term but it makes killing people including Americans sound frivilous.

I don't see this as a left or right issue except in the hypocrisy of the left.  Again, I'm disturbed that you see waterboarding and killing people as somehow equivalent and one side gets one thing and the other gets another.  Popularity contest?  That's an extremely cynical, pessimistic or immature approach.   Heard of the constitution, geneva convention, rule of law?

BTW, waterboarding ended by the election of Obama and the majority of Americans are closely split on the issue.

You'd like to end the GWOT now?  How does that deal with the back to back plots against the country?  Seems unrealistic and unwise to assume the enemy is just going to stop.  Are you just stirring the pot here on SOFREP? 

How does this impact us domestically?  When a gov't establishes no standard to kill people or a system to morally support how we wage war doesn't create a bunch of allies in the world.  As it applies to Americans, the way a gov't treats its citizens is a pretty good indicator of its legitimacy.  Again, I'm not a situational ethics guy and wait for the situation to come up to decide what to do based on what's best for me.

Oh, the war is called GWOT.  Get past the "terror" word.  World War II didn't mean we were fighting the world.  The war is against radical islamism currently championed by AQ.

Apologize for my tone but I'm having trouble getting past your haphazrd treatment of the law, the constitution etc.  Using terms like "popularity contest" and such is more akin to a discussion about TMZ. 

 @momengineer  Awlaki's death didn't bother me except that I was "trusting" that there was a procedure in effect to apply the drone program.  Now that it's been shared I'm not good.

I don't subscribe their has to be a trial etc.  It strikes me as a law enforcement approach to waging war.  That's something the left has applied to the war that has done nothing but confuse the issue.  That said there are ways to do this and still respect the constitution.  600,000 Americans died in the Civil War and there were relatively few trials. 

Some approaches I've suggested is legislation stripping citizenship so the military isn't killing Americans.  Another approach would revolve around military tribunals.  Again, because this makes it a military vs. law enforcement operation.  No matter what, something has to be done.  Did you read that article by Rosa Brooks over at FP.com?  I think it will sharpen the argument and the issues.

 @Surf375

 Like the taste of headcheese, this issue is very complex  ; )

 @StormR  @Surf375@M

Its really how do we balance legal restrictions to the military options of the United States while at the same time adhering to the Constitution, which we swore to uphold. Are we a  “nation of laws, not men" still? I get the dichotomy of the new way of doing biz in a dangerous world, the way we have been going about it does not adequately reflect the nature of modern warfare and terrorism. We need leaders to address these issues with transparency and oversight.

 @StormR  

You're lucky, just saw the Anthony Bourdain Layover episode in Seattle, that place looks awesome, mountain ranges east and west, waterways, water taxis. Enjoy where you are, pessimism is largely media manufactured.

 @ArcticWarrior  

" I subscribe to majrod idea's about citizenship and ammending laws to be more clear and concise. After 9/11 its a new game and the laws havent caught up. This drone thing lacks even the slightest oversight and the Administration wants to have its cake, and eat it too. "

I'm confident it can be done away with after GWOT, but agree on cake and eating it too.  War by drones is a bigger issue here, IMHO, not so much specific targeting whether American or not.

 @Surf375  Pessimistic just seems to be in the air lately.  Next month, I'm taking some time to walk alongside the bay, sit on a big rock by a river, get into some sheningans with my grandchildren - walk away from all the anger, pain and outrage that seems to be raining down from the skies.  See if I can get some perspective back.  I'm stepping away from the herd  for a bit:)

 @Surf375  I had to stop watching about "amass a population worthy of our principles".   So, if I'm not found 'worthy', what happens?  Nevermind, another rhetorical question.

 @Surf375

 EO12333 was meant for foreigners not citizens. Khaddafi was Reagans intent, the argument DoS was we were targeting the facility not the man. Same with Saddam. In fact Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan was fired by Cheney for outright saying we would “‘decapitate’ Iraqi leadership by targeting Saddam, and his family. Even Clinton amended Executive Order 12333 in order to target UBL. Same with Slobo.

Now after 9/11/01 with the "gloves are off" comment killing UBL would be legal as an Article 51 self-defense action against an imminent threat to the United States’ national security. His death would not therefore be an assassination.

All of these examples were foreigners, not citizens. Even Johnny Lindh got a trial and he was caught with his hand in the jar.

I guess we could go back to the Church Commitee for clarification of intent before we look at the EO's ammendments over time.

I subscribe to @majrod idea's about citizenship and ammending laws to be more clear and concise. After 9/11 its a new game and the laws havent caught up. This drone thing lacks even the slightest oversight and the Administration wants to have its cake, and eat it too.

The President certainly needs flexibilty and "jus ad bellum" but this policy in place now sucks balls.

 @ArcticWarrior by-passed, like the Bush admin. by-passed, that looks to be an official amendment to existing laws.

As for executions and assassinations, if you can fit it within Exec. Order 12333, I think you're good, no?

 @momengineer 

" First, how do you propose we "wrap up the GWOT"?  Terror is an idea and ideology, not a country or person...hence the fact we are in the 10th year of GWOT and it shifts countries, etc.  "

Just as we've wrapped up every war that's worth more than the squeeze. 2 states have legalized marijuana--signs of the times, end of the Drug War.

 @Surf375

 The FISA Courts are bypassed, read the law that was recently re-upped. FISA was considered"cumbersome" by the Executive Branch.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5949

Drone strikes on American citizens are executions, not assasinations.

execution - n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a.  the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b.  the writ ordering such enforcement

assasinate- 1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously:

Big difference in Court

Part 2.11 of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. It reads:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

 @Surf375 First, how do you propose we "wrap up the GWOT"?  Terror is an idea and ideology, not a country or person...hence the fact we are in the 10th year of GWOT and it shifts countries, etc.  Honestly, I don't have a clue how we wrap it up, and say we have completed our mission.  Secondly, you make the arguement that this will be resolved by the "right" speaking out against it, and then go on to "counter" my points by arguing with me???  Huh?? Which position are you taking- that we should be speaking out, or that I shouldn't worry about anything?  This discussion *is* the part of the ebb and flow of which you speak...

Finally, no- this won't affect me "personally."   I am a nobody in the global scheme of things, which is absolutely fine with me.  But just because it doesn't affect me personally, does not mean I should not care. Look,  I think drones are a useful tool in our war effort. But, there should be oversight, ESPECIALLY if US citizens are targeted- because we have a little thing called the consitution and the bill of rights.  Should Awlaki be considered treasonous and a combative of war?  Yep, I think he should.  Should the US government unilaterally and privately make that decision w/o trial....I don't think so.

 But at the end of the day, it's about "messaging", if you're killing Awlakies out there and not getting into anymore wars, there's popularity in that. Most people don't really buy into these manufactured morality plays. If you wanna argue against drones, don't use the slippery slope argument (it's dishonest), use Exec. Order 12333--plain and simple, we're not suppose to be assassinating people.

 @StormR 

Sorry to be pessimistic.

 @StormR 

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

It's a popularity contest. Whichever side can convince their way of doing things works. Like Gov. Jindel and Luntz'  newspeak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0K4SCdero

 @Surf375  @momengineer  @majrod  @ArcticWarrior   Why does the phrase 'cattle stampede' come to mind'?   Rhetorical question, of course. 

* OR change of support

 @momengineer  " It is precisely because of past government infringements on the constitution (as you mentioned Storm- the imprisionment of JA citizens, NA tragedies such as the Trail of Tears, etc) that I do *not* trust my government. "

Add slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights and prohibition, ALL of which required public support and change of popular support, whether for or against--ebb and flow.

@majrod  @StormR  @ArcticWarrior 

Doesn't the right have power as a movement these days? If the left easily got rid of waterboarding, why would this be so difficult to get rid off? 

 @momengineer By speaking out against it, am I a "terrorist?"   

It's a slippery slope fallacy. Once we wrap up GWOT, we'll go back to Exec. Order 12333, there's an ebb and flow process at play here.

The left spoke out against waterboarding and got rid of it, the right speaking out against this, will lead to it being unpopular.

The heart of the matter is, how do you want to prosecute GWOT? Is it time to contract now, and just deal w/ Mexico & Asia, OR continue playing world police? I vote for the first myself, BUT see it as disingenuous to be playing these morality plays at the expense of killing bad guys out there.

Back to slippery slope fallacy, how exactly do you see this affecting you personally, ie Ted Nugent taking a vacation to Brazil, pow Predator drone blows him up, no more 2nd Amendment? Luntz kicking it near Reynosa, near la Zona, boom Reaper flies by strikes and no more "messaging" tricks?

C'mon, drone strikes in GWOT to your above scenarios are too far away to even suggest anything being slippery, since we know this program can be ended just as quickly.

 @majrod  " I don't ascribe to the moral school that says if it's popular let's do it or get away with it as long as possible. "

Would you agree though that this is something that can just as easily be stopped much like other gov't programs in the past? Was Exec. Order 12333 effective then? Are we by-passing FISA warrants still these days?

 @majrod  @Surf375  @StormR  @ArcticWarrior I'm late to the party, but want to chime in (as this particular issue is something that makes my blood boil).  First, Storm, you present yourself well, and don't think you couldn't hold your own against any one on this board- you do, so don't sell yourself short.  Secondly, Major, I don't blame the "education" system any more than I do the parents.  Its *parents* imho who are responsible for installing a love of learning, the particular "education" is just a tool- whether that is public, private or homeschooling.  Like all tools, it can be used for good or for "evil" and also, parents should be there to guide their children, etc  Third...I have argued since Bush and the Patriot Act that we are on a slippery slope (so no, its not a "party" thing in my mind...)  When the US citizen turned jihadist (Allawi, right?) was killed I was outraged.  Not because he didn't deserve it, cause he was lower than pond scum, but becuase there was NO due process, no trial, even in abesentia...for a CITIZEN.  When "terrorist" is dependent upon one person's definition, then any of us could be classified that way.  By speaking out against it, am I a "terrorist?"  (i.e. see the West Point paper about "rabid consitutionalists" and "right wing terrorists")  It is precisely because of past government infringements on the constitution (as you mentioned Storm- the imprisionment of JA citizens, NA tragedies such as the Trail of Tears, etc) that I do *not* trust my government.  As I have stated before, I don't adhere to the "black helicoptor crowd" and conspiracy theories, but mankind has proved through the centuries that there is always a gravitation toward the abuse of power, and the potential for corruptibility.  (okay, sorry for the rant...)

 @Surf375  I don't ascribe to the moral school that says if it's popular let's do it or get away with it as long as possible.

Our elected officials took an oath to the constitution similar to mine.  I take it seriously and expect them to make good decisions not popular ones. 

There's a way to use drone strikes against the enemy.  This policy isn't it and it establishes dangerous precedent.  (There is nothing in the policy that limits it to GWOT as you suggested.  Are we supposed to trust?) 

The only reason the administration will get away with it will be because the left and the media won't hold his feet to the fire like they would a President from the opposing party.  The media is another bunch of assclowns that use situational ethics.

 @StormR  @ArcticWarrior

 @majrod #2,4, and 6 as well as the last paragraph. Thanks for the link.

 @ArcticWarrior  I NEVER agree with this writer over at FP.com but she does an excellent job of pointing out the weakness, holes and danger to the drone policy.  Good read...

 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/death_by_loophole?page=0,0

 @StormR " I think I'm relieved that revoking citizenship it is not doable.  The thought of opening the door is frightening.  It's a tool that could easily be misused. "

I think the FISA courts would be your example for this, Storm:

"Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. Like a grand jury, FISC is not an adversarial court: the federal government is the only party to its proceedings.

Due to the classified nature of its proceedings, only government attorneys are usually permitted to appear before the FISC. Due to the nature of the matters heard before it, FISC hearings may need to take place at any time of day or night, weekdays or weekends; thus, at least one judge must be "on call" at all times to hear evidence and decide whether or not to issue a warrant."

Here's their track record:

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html 

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior 

"A potential solution is a law or worse case amendment that addresses this issue."

Convene a court, like the FISC, strip said a-holes of their citizenship, and kill at will.

 @majrod " I have HUGE problems with the Patriot Act being used to persecute anything not doing with terrorism. "

Just ensure these attacks stays w/in the confines of GWOT, if worst comes to worst and too many Awlakies are dying and making us very uncomfortable, just shut down the program and re-invoke Exec. order 12333, anyone who orders a hit via Predator gets FBI investigated.

We can shut this down like we shut down waterboarding, public opinion rules when it comes to these types of things--right, now it's convenient, people like it, people like the President, it's our little GWOT 'mokita', 

so while we have public support on this, I say let's ride the wave and kill as many Awlakies as possible. I'm thinking by 2015 this assassination by robots game will wind down.

IMHO, assassination's the easy part to stop, we've done it before, the drones however is another story.

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior "In many countries of the world you'd never have a chance to overcome such desparate circumstances"   True that, Majrod, true that.  "Opportunity" is not an empty word.  I made it out because I looked for and recognized opportunities, and once I had seized it, worked my tail off to benefit from it.  If I had waited for someone to give me something or lead me by the hand, I'd still be in the fields, or most likely dead by now.  I understand how poverty and despair can grind one down so badly that it's an effort to think past the next meal, or the next day.  I'm not unsympathetic to that circumstance - it's real, I lived it.  But I also know that something has changed along the way and individual initiative and self-responsibility have faded.  Not sure when or how or if I'm just being one of those old ladies that say "In my day...".  Just know if feels like that to me now.   And yes, I am a person of feel vs. reason, although I try to use them in balance. There's a place and purpose for both.

 @StormR Awesome.  You're a self made woman.  That's much to be proud of.  In many countries of the world you'd never have a chance to overcome such desparate circumstances.

The overwhelming majority of what I know was because of what someone shared with me.  I'm just a very good listener and try to "reason" vs. "feel" for the truth.

 @ArcticWarrior

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior "Just goes to show how poor a job our education system is doing."  Just for future reference, I have no experience with the educational system.  I have no formal education.  I was a migrant farm kid.  Longest I was ever in one school was 3 months during a stay with a foster family.  I was fully self-supporting by 15, got a GED at 16, and went to vocational skill to learn a trade, which I then practiced for 47 years.  I am extremely aware of and very self-conscious about my lack of formal education.  My son is a college graduate and at 42, working on his Master's while working full-time, being a husband and raising 2 kids.   I wanted you to be clear about it, because I am NEVER going to be able to give you like-for-like in a debate.  I don't have your educational background and expertise.  All I have to offer is what I've learned during my life experiences.  I do recognize how absolutely out-classed I am in discussions with several of the folks here, but I learn Majrod...I learn.

@StormR  Nope, I don’t trust any party and as I stated I have deep issues with the original patriot act.  I’m an equal opportunity BS caller.  

My allegiance is to the constitution.  Whomever governs according to that document and the intent of the original framers gets my support.  Some think that’s a political party.  Just goes to show how poor a job our education system is doing.

@ArcticWarrior

 @majrod  @ArcticWarrior  I don't know, Majrod, and I don't want to find out.   Here's another big difference between us:  You're a political creature and you don't trust anyone of a particular political viewpoint or party, but you seem to trust your party and those who are politically like-minded as you.   I don't trust government..period..regardless of who is running it and what label they are wearing.   And I know what government does when people feel frightened - it over-reacts.  Indians were 'enemies of the state' and penned up on reservations.  We didn't get citizenship until 1924.  During WWII, Japanese citizens were considered potential enemies of the state, and they were rounded up and put in camps.  I live in a region that had a significant Japanese population and know several internees and their (now) adult children.  Their citizenship didn't amount to much, but at least they retained it.   After 9/11, when the country was over-taken by fear and rage, I wondered what would happen to Muslim citizens.  Did this country learn from it's past?   Apparently so...but the jury is still out.  Government and legalize can be used for just about anything in order to get what it wants.  All that stands in the way is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship...and none of those helped Japanese citizens.  Open the door, and it opens the door for misuse and abuse.  You trust more than I do.

 @StormR and "imminence," "feasibility," and "undue risk" can't?

 @ArcticWarrior

 @ArcticWarrior Absolutely concur on your concerns.

Congress doesn't lead when it comes to war.  That's not its role.  That's the President's.

The Bush administration attempted to establish policies that were constitutional as it prosecuted war.  Their only real failure IMO was the Patriot Act and for very much the same reasons.  I have HUGE problems with the Patriot Act being used to persecute anything not doing with terrorism.

As crappy as Bush was on many domestic issues he was right on Gitmo, unlawful combatant, enhanced interrogation.  If he had to deal with home grown AQ members he would have have led Congress to enact laws to address the problem.  This administration, fat chance.  Heck, they kill terrorists not only because it's easier but because they don't want to have to deal with developing intel which is creating a blind side. 

 @ArcticWarrior  I think I'm relieved that revoking citizenship it is not doable.  The thought of opening the door is frightening.  It's a tool that could easily be misused.

 @majrod

 Have to wonder why Congress hasnt redefined the conduct of war, we have had ample time.

 Agree when its a war situation, but this "Lawfare" makes me wonder.

"we approach this from a conduct of war position vs. enforcing criminal law." - exactly!

This arbitrary classification thing bothers me, no judicial oversight, one man has to provide no information or evidence that the individual is a terrorist?

This has all the potential to go from a slippery slope to a drop off the cliff.

@ArcticWarrior  Agree on your over reach comments.

“The big card in this is-  "imminence," "feasibility," and "undue risk" - interpretations as the basis for one man to be judge, jury and executioner.”

True.  The problem is these words are not defined and as such have HUGE leeway.

"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

True but we aren’t charging Americans with a criminal act.  This is the HUGE problem I have with the left when they treat supranational terror as a criminal enterprise.  The rules are different when in a war situation.  Confusing the two is why we have such a difficult time prosecuting this war.  E.G. Gitmo isn’t indefinite detention of a criminal or suspect.  It’s detention of an enemy captured on the field of battle that the enemy happens to have made the whole world.

My approach has always been to strip citizenship from those who would join an enemy armed force before taking action.  Laws, standards, checks and balances can be developed by a military entity to deal with this situation because I propose we approach this from a conduct of war position vs. enforcing criminal law.  Congres would still make the laws but the application would be a military one as directed by the CIC.  It's how we traditionally conduct war.

 @majrod

The big card in this is-  "imminence," "feasibility," and "undue risk" - interpretations as the basis for one man to be judge, jury and executioner.

As for your famous 14th A case, also include the 5th A - "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". There is no "Terror" exemption.

Look at some of the things Holder, Brennan and Carney have said about this program over the last year, truly scary stuff. The Govt is showing its power, due process is meaningless.

Al-Awlaki was a scumbag no doubt we all would agree on that. But people better pay attention because If one politician can order you dead without legal due process what rights do you really have?

BTW I was told that Congressional staffers saw this paper about a year ago.

 @ArcticWarrior  BTW, stumbled across this... 

"In the 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment, U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship. (That case involved a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who had his U.S. citizenship revoked after voting in an Israeli election, but the precedent applies to military service as well.)"

"Since Afroyim, it's been nearly impossible for someone to be involuntarily stripped of U.S. citizenship. Even if you join a foreign army fighting against the United States, the law says you will only lose your citizenship if you do so "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." That intention can be tough to prove, and in Awlaki's case, the administration made no effort to do so."

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/05/why_are_al_qaeda_members_still_us_citizens

Crap, I learned something...  

A potential solution is a law or worse case amendment that addresses this issue.  BUT... this train of thought ignores that joining an allied country's army might not imply denouncing citizenship, joining an active advesary promoting Sharia law in place of the constitution is entirely different. Sounds like renouncing citizenship to me!  (but I'm a hardass)

 @majrod  I hadnt realized that paper was just released. People within the DoJ's ranks had been talking about that for a few months.

I agree 100% with what you are saying. Its a very dangerous doctrine that gives way too much to the Executive. 6 Degrees can come quick and before you know it......