White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes.

Albert Di Salvo · May 1, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Computer programs are deciding who to shoot?

now, that's really scary science fiction sort of stuff.

This is what I was referring to:

"...Drone assaults on high-value targets – known as "personality strikes" – usually require approval from a lawyer like Rizzo, the CIA chief and sometimes the president himself. But the CIA's more common use of drones – known as "signature strikes" – involves attacks on groups of alleged militants who are behaving in ways that seem suspicious. Such strikes are reportedly the brainchild of the CIA veteran who has run the agency's drone program for the past six years, a chain-smoking convert to Islam who goes by the code name "Roger." In a recent profile, The Washington Post called Roger "the principal architect of the CIA's drone campaign." When it comes to signature strikes, say insiders, the decision to launch a drone assault is essentially an odds game: If the agency thinks it's likely that the group of individuals are insurgents, it will take the shot. "The CIA is doing a lot more targeting on a percentage basis," says the former official with knowledge of the agency's drone program...."

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index....ller-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret

Use of info from worldcantwait doesn't mean I associate with the objectives of the organization.

Utility Man · May 1, 2012

This law has no expiration date from what I remember.

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

jamesrage · May 1, 2012

onestepfurther said:
White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News

"Brennan's remarks amounted to both a defense and a public embrace of drone technology as the leading edge of the White House's clandestine war on terrorists from Yemen to Somalia.
Brennan says targets are chosen by weighing whether there is a way to capture the person against how much of a threat the person presents to Americans.
Targeting Al Qaeda members with lethal force by drones is legal, Brennan said, comparing it to targeting Japanese and German commanders in World War II.
He said use of drones was ethical because "only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted."
Brennan also called targeted strikes "wise," saying they kept both U.S. personnel out of harm's way, and that their precision munitions helped avoid civilian casualties caused by the kind of weapons dropped by jets. "

"Brennan's comments did not directly acknowledge the CIA's covert campaign in Pakistan, which has caused friction with the Pakistani government. Pakistan on Monday condemned a U.S. drone strike that killed three suspected Islamist militants in the northwest, the first since the country's parliament demanded that Washington end the attacks two weeks ago. In the past, Pakistan had publicly condemned strikes, but privately allowed them in specific geographic "boxes," namely in the tribal areas.
"We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "It is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield," Shamsi said.
A protester interrupted Brennan's remarks, shouting criticisms of the drone program. Her last words as she was dragged from the conference room by a security guard were "shame on you.""

Read more: White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News

[FONT=[SIZE=4]
I really want to investigate just why the ACLU reckons targeted drone strikes are illegal. That they would oppose them is axiomatic, but I'm curious about their reasoning.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I don't believe we should use them in countries we are not at war with. We are setting a dangerous precedent here. We are basically saying it would be okay if some other country decided that if some wanted terrorist lives in the US it would be alright for them to send drones into the US. From a nationalistic perspective if I was living in a country that allowed another country to fly drones into my country I would be wanting to revolt and to execute every elected official who committed blatant treason against the people for allowing this,including those who failed to filibuster, as well as retaliate against the countries that sent in the drones.

jamesrage · May 1, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Why not use drones against gangs in US cities? I mean, if it's OK in other places because civilian casualties are at a minimum, wouldn't they be perfect to put an end to the Crips, the Bloods, the MS 13, all of the other violent gangs that infest every city and town in America?

That's a war too, right?

There could also be some terrorist wanted by other countries living in the US,why not let other countries fly their drones into the US to get rid of them?

tessaesque · May 1, 2012

StillBallin75 said:
sometimes sky is gray and grass is yellow.

I mean this with love: smartass. :2razz:

lpast · May 1, 2012

Captain America said:
Anywhere the Taliban terrorists find quarter is fair game to bomb in my opinion.

If the taliban move into your neighborhood, I suggest you do one of two things. Avoid them like the plague and get the hell out or shoot them yourself.

For as surely as one decides to collaborate, mingle, sympathize or give quarter to these bastards, that person becomes a part of the problem rather than part of the solution and therefore they can consider themselves collaterial damage when Uncle Sam comes to call. This goes for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other rock these cockroaches try to hide under.

We shall search the four corners of the universe and hunt them down and kill them dead. They have no place in this world.

Im getting very concerned about my mental health...ive actually totally agreed with you 5 out of 6 times recently....anything that saves american lives im ALL FOR...I dont have time to worry about anything or anyone more than OUR Marines, Gis, Sailors and Airmen...that consumes all my energy and time...all our enemies are shrug...thats not any different than they feel about us...touche!!!!

I need a new kb its skips like mad

Captain America · May 1, 2012

lpast said:
Im getting very concerned about my mental health...ive actually totally agreed with you 5 out of 6 times recently....anything that saves american lives im ALL FOR...I dont have time to worry about anything or anyone more than OUR Marines, Gis, Sailors and Airmen...that consumes all my energy and time...all our enemies are shrug...thats not any different than they feel about us...touche!!!!

I need a new kb its skips like mad

Well, I have long been concerned about your mental health. But now that you're starting to realize it perhaps it is not as chronic as I once diagnosed. LOL! j/k

I know, I know. Too many people today will just lump anyone with a particular lean all into the same sock. I do it too. We're all in a hurry to set the world straight. If people would slow down and actually take time to try to understand why one feels this way or that instead of immediately locking and loading, maybe, just maybe..... Naw... nevermind. How boring is that?

When it comes to American troops, I have unconditional loyalty. No matter the daily news cycle, I know who is on my side and who is my enemy. If civilians understood that our troops are human too, thus proned to knuckleheadedness like any other human, as well as realize that the military deals with it's own ranks in the most harshest of terms, (Believe me. You don't want to have to stand trial in military court,) then they would just shut their piehole and let the miltary do it's thing.

I don't buy the opinion that paying one's fair share of tax dollars somehow gives them some particular right to start demanding their expectations. The way I feel about it, if you have not served, then you are riding on the coat tails of those who have.

I have served and I still pay taxes. If the good Lord's willin', I will be blessed to pay taxes for many years to come.

Therefore, I get to whine a lot. I already paid.

Karl · May 1, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Why not use drones against gangs in US cities? I mean, if it's OK in other places because civilian casualties are at a minimum, wouldn't they be perfect to put an end to the Crips, the Bloods, the MS 13, all of the other violent gangs that infest every city and town in America?

That's a war too, right?

Not to mention ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NPR, PBS, illegal aliens, people voting without photo ID, gays . . . . .

Karl · May 1, 2012

onestepfurther said:
I really want to investigate just why the ACLU reckons targeted drone strikes are illegal. That they would oppose them is axiomatic, but I'm curious about their reasoning.

Generally speaking, it's against the law to assassinate people. Even if they're not 'your' people. I believe the ACLU has been opposed to that type of activity -- murder -- for quite some time.

Albert Di Salvo · May 1, 2012

Utility Man said:
This law has no expiration date from what I remember.

Drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan aren't related to the legislation you reference. The legislation authorizes the US military to respond to the September 11th attacks. Those attacks were based in Afghanistan. So the current Drone War isn't authorized by the legislation in question.

Boo Radley · May 1, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
I don't see anything there that authorizes the president to declare war under the authority of the UN or NATO. It seems to me that the Congress abrogated their responsibility to declare war when it allowed Lyndon Johnson to send half a million troops to war in Vietnam.

However it was done, it appears to me that the executive branch has been given, or has taken, powers that were not granted by the Constitution.

I quite agree. And this allows killing with next to no real oversight. No declaration. Little to no accountability. As such, it's a bad idea.

Risky Thicket · May 1, 2012

StillBallin75 said:
sometimes sky is gray and grass is yellow.

Try not peeing off the porch late a night. That'll help the grass. Though I must admit, it is fun.

Risky Thicket · May 1, 2012

Captain America said:
Anywhere the Taliban terrorists find quarter is fair game to bomb in my opinion.

If the taliban move into your neighborhood, I suggest you do one of two things. Avoid them like the plague and get the hell out or shoot them yourself.

For as surely as one decides to collaborate, mingle, sympathize or give quarter to these bastards, that person becomes a part of the problem rather than part of the solution and therefore they can consider themselves collaterial damage when Uncle Sam comes to call. This goes for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other rock these cockroaches try to hide under.

We shall search the four corners of the universe and hunt them down and kill them dead. They have no place in this world.

You are doing all this or is someone else doing it for you?

Captain America · May 1, 2012

Risky Thicket said:
You are doing all this or is someone else doing it for you?

The guys I support are currently doing it. And an outstanding job they are doing. I already did my time. How 'bout you Risky? I see you served as well. Thanks for your service too.

Dittohead not! · May 1, 2012

jamesrage said:
There could also be some terrorist wanted by other countries living in the US,why not let other countries fly their drones into the US to get rid of them?

Sounds fair to me.

I can't wait to see what happens when we send a drone to take out suspected terrorists in London, Paris, or Los Angeles.

iguanaman · May 1, 2012

Albert Di Salvo said:
There is a significant defect in the current Drone War. It has no basis of legitimacy under either American or International law.

But "shock and awe" on the people of Iraq was just peachy.

Albert Di Salvo · May 1, 2012

iguanaman said:
But "shock and awe" on the people of Iraq was just peachy.

The Second Iraq War was a mistake of judgment, not illegal under American law. Congress approved of the Second Iraq War.

Utility Man · May 1, 2012

Albert Di Salvo said:
Drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan aren't related to the legislation you reference. The legislation authorizes the US military to respond to the September 11th attacks. Those attacks were based in Afghanistan. So the current Drone War isn't authorized by the legislation in question.

in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

Maybe you should look up the definition of the word "prevent" and go from there.

MoSurveyor · May 1, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Sounds fair to me.

I can't wait to see what happens when we send a drone to take out suspected terrorists in London, Paris, or Los Angeles.

I'll start screaming! That's a dreadful waste of resources! We can make a phone call to the Brits, the French, or LAPD and guide them in if need be, no reason to waste $10,000 on munitions! :shock:

:lol:

Albert Di Salvo · May 1, 2012

Utility Man said:
in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

Maybe you should look up the definition of the word "prevent" and go from there.

You have a good argument. But people of good faith can disagree on the interpretation and meaning of the word "prevent." Although we can't be sure of the specific intent underlying the word "prevent" we can probably agree that it would have been advisable to explicitly refer to theaters other than Afghanistan and to Services in addition to the Armed Services, e.g., the CIA, in the Authorization. If the federal govt. had been specific on this question there would have been much less room for disagreement over the meaning of legitimacy and war crimes.

Captain America · May 2, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Sounds fair to me.

I can't wait to see what happens when we send a drone to take out suspected terrorists in London, Paris, or Los Angeles.

Don't think drones are required in those circumstances. Those governments are cooperative with the US in the attempt to exterminate terrorism. Pakistan is not. They try to put on a good show but they are are NOT our allies and never will be regardless of how much money we bribe them with.

dirtpoorchris · May 2, 2012

*drone detects pot in smoke form*

* missile 1 out*

WINNING THE WAR ON DRUGS ONE MISSLE AT A TIME.

Jiang Fensui · May 2, 2012

Karl said:
Generally speaking, it's against the law to assassinate people. Even if they're not 'your' people. I believe the ACLU has been opposed to that type of activity -- murder -- for quite some time.

Agreed, drone strikes are a cowardly form of murder and should be despised by the civilized world

Albert Di Salvo · May 2, 2012

I wonder if Chen Guangcheng is online?

White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes.

Albert Di Salvo

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector

jamesrage

jamesrage

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!

lpast

Captain America

Jedi Master

Karl

Karl

Albert Di Salvo

Boo Radley

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Captain America

Jedi Master

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

iguanaman

Albert Di Salvo

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector

MoSurveyor

Albert Di Salvo

Captain America

Jedi Master

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos

Jiang Fensui

New member

Albert Di Salvo

White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes.

Sidewalk Inspector

Bring us a shrubbery!

Jedi Master

Sewer Rat

Sewer Rat

Jedi Master

master political analyst

Sidewalk Inspector

Jedi Master

King of Videos

New member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency