[–] FractalizingIron 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
When was the report made? 2013.
Do I trust anything the Guardian publishes? No.
We know Obama is evil, but I fail to see how this report and source advance our work.
Cheers.
[–] joeythew 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Good that guy needed to be taken out. And he wasn't really an American Citizen anyway. Just because his non-American parents were stationed here and he happened to be born here doesn't really make him an American (yeah I know by law it does but it's bullshit).
[–] Light_Guard ago
Obama's administration used to deliberately target weddings and funerals, murdering innocent men, women and children to take out one suspected terrorist. That is not acceptable collateral damage and should not be part of the game.
[–] Are_we_sure 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Your analysis is puerile and facile and dishonest. It's not a hit list at all and it doesn't apply to American citizens. It only applies to
U.S. Citizens who are Senior Operational Leaders of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force
The document is actually a serious attempt wrestle with a very serious issue: what do you do when an American leads a stateless terror group like Al Qaida and is seriously threatening the US and is beyond the reach of US law. It's an attempt to construct a moral and legal framework around the drone program and the threat of terrorists operating in fiefdoms or failed states. It's actually an attempt to place limits on drone warfare and ensure it follows the laws of war.
In fact the document is titled
Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”
This does not apply to American citizens in general.
This only applies to
U.S. citizens who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force
who pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States
whose capture is infeasible
and the US has to keep monitoring to see this changes and they can be captured. This can't happen in the US and only applies to war zones and failed states and terrorist fiefdoms
and the operation must be within the laws of war.
Here's what the document says
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
I don't consider killing a terrorist who poses active threat to the US because they can't be arrested to evil and who has joined a group that has declared war on America and I'm sure a lot of other folks agree with that.
You can debate the morality/ethics/limitations of this policy, but ignoring the complexities of the problem it is trying to address is morally dishonest.