Terrorist Lawsuit

[HeyYou]

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances???

 

As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field.

 

You look good in green. :)

 

I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

Maybe I was not clear enough, on the ground in a firefight shoot first and check passports later. What I was talking about is using a drone to go after a specific target that we know is an American citizen before launch of a hellfire. In other words, the citizen was the primary objective from the moment the predator took to the air, not collateral damage.

 

Yeah, there is that minor "foreknowledge" deal...... But, what ya gonna do? Wait a month or more for authorization to work its way thru the system? At which point, said citizen is highly likely to be elsewhere... I suppose, if you had a 'target list'..... which I am sure we do..... getting some flavor of apprehend if possible/kill otherwise... order would be acceptable??

Yes I could live with that as long as apprehend was considered seriously and not just a pro forma box to be checked off while the missile was going downrange. .

 

:D You know that's basically what it would boil down to..... Missiles are cheap when compared to the time, effort, and money invested in our special forces, which would more than likely be the ones sent in to apprehend the subject...... I note that we didn't even bother trying to arrest Osama. They killed him as soon as they saw him. (which I just don't really have a problem with...) Granted, he wasn't an american citizen.....

[csgators]

The US is rapidly deploying drones domestically, I'm sure they will all be unarmed and remain that way so there is no need for alarm. They'll call the judge after to make sure the targets were legit.

[Tidus44]

In a war, valid military targets may be destroyed, but the indiscriminate destruction of property and killing/injuring of noncombatants is prohibited. Where a noncombatant is injured/killed or property is destroyed, the country involved is obligated to investigate and compensate.

 

Since the US is conducting these drone attacks as a means of "enforcement" under international law, the attacks fall under different rules. A person may not be singled out and killed just because they may be doing something unlawful. The use of deadly force is authorized if there is imminent or immediate danger to lives and property and there is no possible means to arrest the person(s). When persons are injured, killed or property damaged the country involved is obliged to investigate and to compensate for losses.

 

The US is playing fast and loose with international laws and has continuously refused to comply with international law (which they helped write) citing their "war on terror". But the US is not at war with the countries where the majority of drone attacks are occurring. Worse, the US has refused to investigate or compensate by denying any collateral damage occurred, that the target destroyed was considered "terrorist" or by simply stating "no credible" report of collateral damage has been made.

 

The last few attacks in northern Pakistan killed 24 soldiers, destroyed a school and killed children and destroyed other property. The target was identified as "an al-Qaeda and Taliban training camp". Pakistan has complained that US drone attacks are known to have killed 535 civilians, including 60 children, in the last three years. They claim the current death toll exceeds 1000 since the US began these attacks.

 

The US used to stand for freedom, honor and fairness when the world looked at it. This morning, the Pakistan government suggested they "have the means to retaliate" if the US does not cease the drone attacks. Consider that Pakistan is a nuclear power and then think of what "have the means" may suggest. While one may suggest anything they want as to what that means, that is just scary as anything I have ever heard.

 

The US has established an extremely dangerous precedent that will cause more pain and suffering around the world.

While there is no argument that there is a right under international law for the US to protect itself - the ends do not justify the means. And really, the point that really struck home for me, the Pakistani people are wondering exactly who the terrorists are because the Al Qaeda and Taliban are not hurting them, destroying their property or killing their children.

 

Sadly, it will be considered a frivolous and wasteful lawsuit and the US will hide behind "security needs" or just simply ignore it. My actual concern is what is this going to "cost" in the future?

 

As for those who want to be offended that anything I have posted is "anti-American" - well it isn't and go ahead and be offended. I could care less what the US does except for how it effects everyone else. We can all thank the US now for the strontium-90 pretty much every living thing carries since August 1945, I just don't want to be thanking them for some other "gift" they bring about.

[Sync182]

Ask the three filing the lawsuits about the Constitutional Rights of the 3000-odd people who died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

 

Firvolous waste of time, IMO...but the terrorsists will love it, and might even start using it themselves (and, of course, lawyers will charge to it like a bull to a red rag).

 

Can't people like this get into their heads that the more we ridicule ourselves in this manner, the stronger the terrorists' resolve to fight us becomes?

[Vindekarr]

From the perspective of a young non-american:

 

Ironically I'm probably as much an extremist as they are, and ofcourse the situation is probably much more complex than my read on it, but their(islamic extremists) actions have made my life worse, robbed my of a good friend and meant that a lot of innocent people have lost their lives, with that in mind, I think they have no right to claim this was unconstitutional, let alone unjust. Some times war is justified, for me this is one example. Does that stem from a simplistic world view and a desire to see people who wronged me suffer? probably.

[mizdarby]

From the perspective of a young non-american:

 

Ironically I'm probably as much an extremist as they are, and ofcourse the situation is probably much more complex than my read on it, but their(islamic extremists) actions have made my life worse, robbed my of a good friend and meant that a lot of innocent people have lost their lives, with that in mind, I think they have no right to claim this was unconstitutional, let alone unjust. Some times war is justified, for me this is one example. Does that stem from a simplistic world view and a desire to see people who wronged me suffer? probably.

Fully agree with the sentiments of the post.

I would break it down to this simplistic view, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", which is too say, if an individual wishes to associate themselves, with an 'terrorist' organisation, with an inclination in acts which result in loss of innocent lives, then that individual must suffer the consequences of reaction to his/her actions, and if that results in the death of other members of the same 'terrorist' organisation, so be it.

I should point out, that I would apply this equally to any 'terrorist' group, regardless of whether they are Islamic, Christian or any other orientation.

[Nintii]

Make no mistake, terrorists have no qualms whatsoever in taking your money.

 

Well it can be argued that after many a war that has been fought ... people have sought "Restituition" or "Reparations" ... "foreign forces" have "occupied" certain Middle Eastern countries and though the current leaders of those nations have not cried "foul", perhaps if a new government came into power after them that the new leadership might decide to "take issue" and go to the world court and make some noise and demand reparation.

Now I'm not saying that they'll get it but they would have a stronger case than an individual or small group.

 

Recently a Libyan military commander decided to sue Ex-UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw ... and I quote ....

 

"Another lawsuit related to illegal rendition has been filed against a British official by the head of the military wing of Libyas transitional council in Tripoli, Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

The latest legal action is being taken against the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia, with Belhadj claiming the island was part of the route used to transport

him from Thailand, back into the hands of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2004.

 

Belhadj is also suing a former head of British counter-terrorism organisation MI6, the UK government and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Straw, who served in the Labour government under then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been accused of approving Belhadjs rendition.

Straw said he was unable to comment because of an ongoing police investigation.

 

end quote ...

 

Make no mistake this kind of thing is not going to go away ... and it's going to take just one lawyer to find some type of hole in your governments case to create a precedent and then you're

going to see the stream of these radicals enjoying your tax dollars / pounds or Euros on some beach with an umbrella in their coconut ... oops forgot they don't drink.

Ok, a new "Volksie" (VW) filled with explosives courtesy of the "... name of the offending nation goes here ... " people.

 

Just a bit of history in the making here ... did you know that on the 3rd of October 2010 Germany made it's FINAL PAYMENT of it's World War I reparations ?

 

Germany makes it's Final Payment

Edited July 22, 2012 by Nintii

[JimboUK]

People are talking as if this is something new, countries have been murdering those they see as enemies for years. The only difference is how openly it's being done, it's almost as if the U.S wants to create more enemies. As for lawsuits, the idea behind them is to get the government to settle out of court, they know the last thing the government want is their business discussed in a court room.

[Aurielius]

People are talking as if this is something new, countries have been murdering those they see as enemies for years. The only difference is how openly it's being done, it's almost as if the U.S wants to create more enemies. As for lawsuits, the idea behind them is to get the government to settle out of court, they know the last thing the government want is their business discussed in a court room.

@Jim

Your first two points are all too true, unfortunately. The third not so much, since the government can claim national security privilege to prevent disclosure of anything they do not want aired in open court. The Homeland security Act of 2002 is fairly broad in terms of what it indemnifies the government for.

[JimboUK]

People are talking as if this is something new, countries have been murdering those they see as enemies for years. The only difference is how openly it's being done, it's almost as if the U.S wants to create more enemies. As for lawsuits, the idea behind them is to get the government to settle out of court, they know the last thing the government want is their business discussed in a court room.

@Jim

Your first two points are all too true, unfortunately. The third not so much, since the government can claim national security privilege to prevent disclosure of anything they do not want aired in open court. The Homeland security Act of 2002 is fairly broad in terms of what it indemnifies the government for.

 

The U.S government is obviously more organised than ours, our government are being sued by all sorts of degenerates.