5 ms·

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? If you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both US c

> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? If you're referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both US citizens, it was intentional. If you're not referring to this, Obama's already done this without getting charged. Being POTUS is an unenviable job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Edit: Since people are assuming my views on this topic, I'll say that they're seriously conflicted and I'm not trying to imply any particular viewpoint, only the facts.

chasd00 2y ago
on a tangent, was the drone operator charged? iirc "just following orders" only goes so far.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- haroldp 2y ago
  No. It seems unlikely that the drone pilot would have all of that information beyond where the target was, that would be necessary to make an informed decision about participating in an extrajudicial execution of an American citizen.
  - runjake 2y ago
    From my experience in manned operations, you're basically only given a target, not the details. Based on that, I would assume the targeter did not know whom they were targeting. Or they did, knew the orders came from the National Command Authority[1] (Eg. POTUS) and did it anyway. I would have. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority_(Un...
itsdavesanders 2y ago
I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!” And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.
- JamesBarney 2y ago
  I think that is 99% true, with the exception of civilians who take up arms against the US. Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates.
  - SahAssar 2y ago
    > Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates. A full scale civil war really is an extraordinary case and is a lot more akin to a regular war than what we are talking about here. I'm more afraid of someone declaring war on an abstract concept (like the "war on terror") and then using broad powers meant to be used in normal wars between states that have declared combatants than I am of a civil war.
    - foobarian 2y ago
      I wonder how that would play out in today's Congress. There is technically no country to declare war on, unless you can declare war on yourself, so they would have to first redefine the United States as two parts. After that is passed, they could declare war on the opposing half. I guess I'm kind of seeing how the Chinese governments got themselves tied up in knots with their continuity of state and all.
      - SahAssar 2y ago
        I'd imagine that you can declare war on a specific group (that does not have to be defined as a state) like the "confederate states of america" without it having to be a nebulous concept like "terror". But I don't know enough to say for certain.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    If we have a declared war between the US and the people (US citizens or otherwise) who are taking up arms against the US, then sure, attack away. But otherwise, the only remedy should be judicial process against these people: arrests, trial, etc. Otherwise we have a term for it: extrajudicial killing. Of course, Congress has given the executive branch weird war powers over the past few decades, so legally I'm sure they're in the clear, unfortunately.
larkost 2y ago
I don't like the killing by a drone (to easy for it to be misused), I am less ok with the killing of his 16-year-old son, and even less so for his daughters killing. But... It seems he was a member of al-Qaeda, and the "Public Law 107–40 107th Congress Joint Resolution" passed by congress did authorize: > That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force > against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, > authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on > September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to > prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States > by such nations, organizations or persons. That does seem to authorize extra-judical killing in this case. I am not really happy about any of this, but since we are talking legalities, this seems to apply. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

chasd00 2y ago

on a tangent, was the drone operator charged? iirc "just following orders" only goes so far.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
haroldp 2y ago
No. It seems unlikely that the drone pilot would have all of that information beyond where the target was, that would be necessary to make an informed decision about participating in an extrajudicial execution of an American citizen.
- runjake 2y ago
  From my experience in manned operations, you're basically only given a target, not the details. Based on that, I would assume the targeter did not know whom they were targeting. Or they did, knew the orders came from the National Command Authority[1] (Eg. POTUS) and did it anyway. I would have. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority_(Un...

itsdavesanders 2y ago

I keep seeing this argument pop up about “should Obama be prosecuted” like it’s some sort of “gotcha liberal!” And as a liberal I think “hell YES he should be prosecuted!” The government shouldn’t just go around killing citizens without due process. I don’t care what letter is by their name.

JamesBarney 2y ago
I think that is 99% true, with the exception of civilians who take up arms against the US. Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates.
- SahAssar 2y ago
  > Imagine the civil war if the union couldn't kill confederates. A full scale civil war really is an extraordinary case and is a lot more akin to a regular war than what we are talking about here. I'm more afraid of someone declaring war on an abstract concept (like the "war on terror") and then using broad powers meant to be used in normal wars between states that have declared combatants than I am of a civil war.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    I wonder how that would play out in today's Congress. There is technically no country to declare war on, unless you can declare war on yourself, so they would have to first redefine the United States as two parts. After that is passed, they could declare war on the opposing half. I guess I'm kind of seeing how the Chinese governments got themselves tied up in knots with their continuity of state and all.
    - SahAssar 2y ago
      I'd imagine that you can declare war on a specific group (that does not have to be defined as a state) like the "confederate states of america" without it having to be a nebulous concept like "terror". But I don't know enough to say for certain.
- kelnos 2y ago
  If we have a declared war between the US and the people (US citizens or otherwise) who are taking up arms against the US, then sure, attack away. But otherwise, the only remedy should be judicial process against these people: arrests, trial, etc. Otherwise we have a term for it: extrajudicial killing. Of course, Congress has given the executive branch weird war powers over the past few decades, so legally I'm sure they're in the clear, unfortunately.

larkost 2y ago

I don't like the killing by a drone (to easy for it to be misused), I am less ok with the killing of his 16-year-old son, and even less so for his daughters killing. But... It seems he was a member of al-Qaeda, and the "Public Law 107–40 107th Congress Joint Resolution" passed by congress did authorize: > That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force > against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, > authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on > September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to > prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States > by such nations, organizations or persons. That does seem to authorize extra-judical killing in this case. I am not really happy about any of this, but since we are talking legalities, this seems to apply. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf