White House reportedly struggling to target US citizen with drone attack

An American citizen who is a member of Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Is this member of Al Qaeda a jack@$$? Yes, he is obviously a jack@$$. But if he is an American citizen, isn't he innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't there be a trial?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems like our country's leaders have no regard for the rights of their citizens.

Here is the link to the story.

An American citizen who is a member of Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

There is nothing to struggle about.

Arrest him.

No need for drones.

Just straight to executions now Obama ?

That decision can't get any more simple.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight

But if he is an American citizen, isn't he innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't there be a trial?

Absolutely. He should voluntarily come back to the US and prove his innocence in a court of law. In the mean time, the US should focus on targeting the foreign terrorists that he is running around with. Kill those foreign terrorists and if this guy just happens to be collateral damage, then so be it.

According to the laws passed by Bush when he joined a terrorist group he signed his death warrant. Why is it now they suddenly start to wonder what the law says?

New bill being proposed: revoke citizenship for people who aid the enemy act.

LOL

if this guy just happens to be collateral damage, then so be it.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


oh I'm sure they'll call it collateral damage, now if it's true or not is a whole other thing.

buster2010
According to the laws passed by Bush when he joined a terrorist group he signed his death warrant. Why is it now they suddenly start to wonder what the law says?

My thought was about the rebels in Syria some of our government leaders want to aid. Aren't they affiliated with Al Qaeda? I just don't understand how they don't see the double standard.

buster2010
According to the laws passed by Bush when he joined a terrorist group he signed his death warrant. Why is it now they suddenly start to wonder what the law says?

Sorry the law passed under Clinton

en.wikipedia.org...

According to the summary by President Clinton, the bill was intended to establish federal criminal jurisdiction over acts of international terrorism.[5] Civil liberty advocacy groups opposed the bill on the grounds that it would violate fundamental civil liberties, including the right to confront one's accuser. [3] Another source of opposition was the Government's ability to use evidence from secret sources in deportation proceedings for suspected terrorists. [3] During the debate over the Patriot Act of 2001 then Senator Joe Biden compared this bill to its 2001 counterpart stating "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill."

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice revisionist history there btw.

reply to post by neo96

Just straight to executions now Obama ?

That decision can't get any more simple.

No kidding!! I can't believe they're even "struggling" to have a debate on this. Murdering Americans overseas is now a topic of debate in the Oval Office???


Even George Bush ran one of the most extensive kidnap and detain programs in world history....in AVOIDING this very thing. He had the brains to know ..SOME things make bad P.R. almost nothing can erase.

If Obama even needs to wonder? He needs to get that Constitution back out and see where it gives the President the power of summary execution without due process or trial of any kind. I missed that part...and he can't DO THIS if he has no Constitutional authority for it.

neo96

Arrest him.

No need for drones.

Sometimes I think people in our modern world tend to over Tech things.

Great call!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Even George Bush ran one of the most extensive kidnap and detain programs in world history....in AVOIDING this very thing. He had the brains to know ..SOME things make bad P.R. almost nothing can erase.

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton

www.aclu.org...

Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (pp. 143-144)

www.nationalreview.com...

Goes back further before it was 'cool' ot blame Bush.

I mean it is obvious what do for anyone who respect's and adhere's to the constituion and the rule of law. But our we sure that our constituional lawyer president respects the rule of law.

But Ithnk the bigger pictur eof the puzzle has been revealed here. The presdeint can drone most of the middle easter/Northren African countries all he wants to. But get to a country thta is a little bigger and has wolrd standing its not so easily to be a bully is it? I mean there was not even a question to try and predator drone Snowden was there. AH! now we get it don't we.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Obviously a jackass why? What evidence do they have that this is a guy who has hurt Americans and not some radical kid who went overseas as an independent journalist trying to expose government wrongdoing? Generally speaking we'd hash all that out in a court room before we killed him. The government has already decided they don't want that in this case, even though it's not clear exactly what else they could possibly do short of a blantantly illegal murder, so now that option is kinda being floated to see if we will complain.

The only thing obvious about this story is that the rules designed to protect our rights, and even the newer loser rules designed to provide the illusion that we still have rights, are just a minor bureaucratic obstacle that can be moved on a whim as far as the government is concerned.

reply to post by neo96


I suppose if we want to get particular, renditions or something just like it by a different name...go back several Presidents before that.

In terms of modern war related issues tho? I see a Before 9/11 and After 9/11 and damn little else. Whatever may have been legal before 9/11 or may have been done extralegal but rarely? It became routine and just par for the day's business under Bush and the terror wars. Right, Wrong or Neither ...I'm not taking a "blame" anyone approach to anything.

It's historically accurate to say it became a normal course of US action after 9/11. It had not been, prior to that. One man was President when that changed. History records this as dry fact...not blame or opinion.

The only thing I am seeing 'blame' for here is the open debate of murdering a U.S. Citizen overseas without trial. Hell, at least try the moron in absentia and give it a passing laugh of legitimacy ....at least for appearances?

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Hopefully , the agents involved will realize that in the ' flip - top ' part of their phone - is yet another battery with links to the GPS transmitter. And not get caught up in anything ' untowards ' .

reply to post by The Vagabond

we're arguing for the same thing here, I'm not going to apologize for calling the guy a name. I think he should have a trial where evidence is presented. take it easy.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I suppose if we want to get particular, renditions or something just like it by a different name...go back several Presidents before that.

Indeed.

This country has always been messed up. Just didn't become like this during the last 2 presidents.

In terms of modern war related issues tho? I see a Before 9/11 and After 9/11 and damn little else. Whatever may have been legal before 9/11 or may have been done extralegal but rarely? It became routine and just par for the day's business under Bush and the terror wars. Right, Wrong or Neither ...I'm not taking a "blame" anyone approach to anything.

Sorry that comment wasn't directed at you.

Should have been clearer.

The only thing I am seeing 'blame' for here is the open debate of murdering a U.S. Citizen overseas without trial. Hell, at least try the moron in absentia and give it a passing laugh of legitimacy ....at least for appearances?

Everyone deserves their day in court.

Even the most vile,twisted of society.

So yeah.

I'm calling BS on the whole thing... Don't believe it.. If the CIA wanted to kill him, he'd be dead, and no one would know about it.. The whitehouse sure wouldn't let us know their *struggling* with an outright ILLEGAL ACT? They already killed one US citizen without batting an eye and now their *letting us in on the secret*. Dog and pony show people

On the field of battle, he'd be fair game. Nothing more than a target acquired.

But the war on terrorism changed that.

Now, a couple of years ago, I'd be (I was, actually) all for Obama and all for this program.

I got schooled. By some great members here on ATS.

But this is a new style of warfare. I know it's wrong to just drone people. I hate drones. I despise drones.

I liked Neo's post. Just arrest him. But this IS war, isn't it?

I don't think we'll win the war on terrorism. In order to win, we'd have to cede too much. Too much freedom, too much liberty. The "War on Terrorism" is a war on our basic freedoms.

We might just have to embrace the horror, accept that terrorists exist, accept that they may do bad things, in order to be free.


I don't know. Maybe some smarter people here on ATS can put it better than I.

reply to post by starfoxxx


Not BS

The drone program was moved to the DOD, and since this countries military leader is a civilian who calls the shots.

www.defensenews.com...

WASHINGTON — The White House has quietly shifted lead responsibility for its controversial armed drone program from the CIA to the Defense Department, a move that could encounter resistance on Capitol Hill.

The buck stops on Obama's desk.