Holder says 4 Americans died in US drone strikes

[Chris]

The Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens since 2009, including the previously undisclosed death of a North Carolina resident who left the United States for Pakistan and was later indicted on federal terrorism charges.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a letter to congressional leaders and chairman of key congressional committees made public on the eve of what was billed as a major counterterrorism speech by President Barack Obama, also confirmed the deaths in drone attacks in Yemen of three other Americans that already had been widely reported: those of radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki , his teenage son, Abd al-Rahmn Anwar al-Awlaki; and Samir Khan, the American who ran al Qaeda’s web-based propaganda magazine Inspire. Previously the Obama administration had only acknowledged the senior Awlaki’s killing and refused to publicly confirm or deny reports of the other deaths....

@ Holder says 4 Americans died in US drone strikes (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18429089-in-first-public-acknowledgement-holder-says-4-americans-died-in-us-drone-strikes?lite)

Something is very wrong when our government starts killing Americans I don't care who they are or what they allegedly did.

[jillian]

@ Holder says 4 Americans died in US drone strikes (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18429089-in-first-public-acknowledgement-holder-says-4-americans-died-in-us-drone-strikes?lite)

Something is very wrong when our government starts killing Americans I don't care who they are or what they allegedly did.

the last admin put an american citizen in gitmo, taking away his right to habeas corpus and that act was sustained with little fuss by the supreme court.

both that and this are wrong.

still think rights occur naturally?

or are they meaningless unless they are protected by government?

[Chris]

Agree, both that and this are wrong.

Yes, it is because of natural rights that such actions are wrong, are unjust--which we both agree to: "both that and this are wrong."

What fails are artificial protections of rights, when government acts unjustly, wrongly--which we both agree to: "both that and this are wrong."

[jillian]

Agree, both that and this are wrong.

Yes, it is because of natural rights that such actions are wrong, are unjust--which we both agree to: "both that and this are wrong."

What fails are artificial protections of rights, when government acts unjustly, wrongly--which we both agree to: "both that and this are wrong."

and yet, when this president said he was going to close gitmo because keeping people without charges is wrong, the congress passed the only restriction on presidential power.... they took away the funding to move the prisoners (more than half of whom are cleared for release to their home country) or close the facility.

no rights exist which are not protected by the government, for better or worse

[Chris]

and yet, when this president said he was going to close gitmo because keeping people without charges is wrong, the congress passed the only restriction on presidential power.... they took away the funding to move the prisoners (more than half of whom are cleared for release to their home country) or close the facility.

no rights exist which are not protected by the government, for better or worse

There's a distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Noncitizens are not guaranteed protections generally. Noncitizens still have inalienable rights. There's just no obligation to protect them.

If rights do not exist then government doesn't either. See Declaration and Constitution, especially the Preamble. Based on their rights to do so the people created the government. The fact government fails to protect rights only proves government incapable of living up to the social contract.

[Dr. Who]

There's a distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Noncitizens are not guaranteed protections generally. Noncitizens still have inalienable rights. There's just no obligation to protect them.

If rights do not exist then government doesn't either. See Declaration and Constitution, especially the Preamble. Based on their rights to do so the people created the government. The fact government fails to protect rights only proves government incapable of living up to the social contract.Ok I have a little problem here. US citizens in foreign territory engaging in the same activities that the domestic population do, ostensibly have more rights to US protections from being targeted than the native population. The problem I have is, the native population are in their own territory and the aggressor is the US (foreign aggressor), so whose rights are being particularly infringed when the US commits drone attacks in foreign territory. If Constitutional rights are really subordinate to natural rights, doesn't the domestic population of say Yemen, have the right to expect that their natural rights to freedom and existence not be extinguished by foreign interlopers, particularly in their own home land. Not that I am defending terrorist activities. This is simply a question regarding natural rights.

[Common]

I fully understand peoples feelings about the american in gitmo and these americans bombed.
Lets put both in their perspective ok. ALL of them were on our enemies soil, not american. Each of them were proven to be a threat to america. I dont put these incidents in the same light as a drone flying into chicago and popping a american or two.

[patrickt]

Now I wonder how many U.S. citizens the government has killed with drones. AG Holder wouldn't have mentioned it unless he thought something was going to be made public and he's never told us the truth so I wonder how many citizens have been killed?

[Peter1469]

and yet, when this president said he was going to close gitmo because keeping people without charges is wrong, the congress passed the only restriction on presidential power.... they took away the funding to move the prisoners (more than half of whom are cleared for release to their home country) or close the facility.

no rights exist which are not protected by the government, for better or worse

Enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the war. Charges aren't necessary. In fact, if the enemy followed the laws of war, there may be no charges to bring.

[Chris]

Ok I have a little problem here. US citizens in foreign territory engaging in the same activities that the domestic population do, ostensibly have more rights to US protections from being targeted than the native population. The problem I have is, the native population are in their own territory and the aggressor is the US (foreign aggressor), so whose rights are being particularly infringed when the US commits drone attacks in foreign territory. If Constitutional rights are really subordinate to natural rights, doesn't the domestic population of say Yemen, have the right to expect that their natural rights to freedom and existence not be extinguished by foreign interlopers, particularly in their own home land. Not that I am defending terrorist activities. This is simply a question regarding natural rights.


I think you missed allegedly and in one or two cases indicted. As US citizens, their right to a trial should not be left unprotected.

There is no such thing as Constitutional rights. The Constitution nor the state grants rights. There are only natural inalienable rights. What the Constitution does, in the BoR, is prohibit government from violating certain rights, leaving others to the people.

[Chris]

I fully understand peoples feelings about the american in gitmo and these americans bombed.
Lets put both in their perspective ok. ALL of them were on our enemies soil, not american. Each of them were proven to be a threat to america. I dont put these incidents in the same light as a drone flying into chicago and popping a american or two.

About as proven as say Bush's belief Sadam had WMD and was an imminent threat. They were allegedly guilty, two had been indicted.

[Chris]

Now I wonder how many U.S. citizens the government has killed with drones. AG Holder wouldn't have mentioned it unless he thought something was going to be made public and he's never told us the truth so I wonder how many citizens have been killed?

No kidding. These were just four already well known cases.

[Chris]

Enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the war. Charges aren't necessary. In fact, if the enemy followed the laws of war, there may be no charges to bring.

But these were four citizens and these acts a violation of the Constitution:


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

See also Article 3, and amendment 7.

The Declaration list this as a complaint against the King: "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."

And Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:


Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land."

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#United_States

[Peter1469]

But these were four citizens and these acts a violation of the Constitution:



See also Article 3, and amendment 7.

The Declaration list this as a complaint against the King: "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."

And Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#United_States

Agreed. I was responding to the non-US citizens at GITMO comment.

[jillian]

But these were four citizens and these acts a violation of the Constitution:



See also Article 3, and amendment 7.

The Declaration list this as a complaint against the King: "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."

And Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#United_States

i think the concept of "enemy combatant" is a justification for violating the geneva conventions and divesting people of their right to habeas corpus.

would you want to be in a foreign country and trust that if they "designate" you an enemy combatant they can put you away forever with no trial? in order to accept that, you have to accept that the government is accurate in the designation. even if they are well-meaning, people have the right to be charged to test the government's information at a trial.

you aren't trying to assert that the magna carta is somehow binding on us, are you?

[Cigar]

@ Holder says 4 Americans died in US drone strikes (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18429089-in-first-public-acknowledgement-holder-says-4-americans-died-in-us-drone-strikes?lite)

Something is very wrong when our government starts killing Americans I don't care who they are or what they allegedly did.

Hear comes another opportunity .... :grin:

[Chris]

i think the concept of "enemy combatant" is a justification for violating the geneva conventions and divesting people of their right to habeas corpus.

would you want to be in a foreign country and trust that if they "designate" you an enemy combatant they can put you away forever with no trial? in order to accept that, you have to accept that the government is accurate in the designation. even if they are well-meaning, people have the right to be charged to test the government's information at a trial.

you aren't trying to assert that the magna carta is somehow binding on us, are you?

Just providing history of natural rights, though the Magna Carta was more about group rights, the Declaration and Constitution about protecting individual rights.


I see you now admit natural rights re habeas corpus. Whether such universal rights are protected depends on social contract.