U.S. Citizens killed by their own government's drones?

[Sawyer]

For all of the people familiar with the United States Constitution, it is known that we are guaranteed the right to have a trial by jury, due process of law, free speech, and many other rights listed in the bill of rights. My question is: Do you think that then government sanctioned killing of a citizen of the United States of America without a jury, trial, or even bringing charges against that person is acceptable? Even if that person was a terrorist? My views are that we are GUARANTEED to face our accusers and have a trial by equal peers and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE should our basic unalienable rights be stripped from us. What are your thoughts?

[Ian]

This reminded me of Anwar al-Aulaqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi)

[Rincewind]

Yep, the government is slowly eroding away our personal rights.

And no offence, but Churchill was a racist.

[Angel Heart]

You waiver your rights to personal safety and freedom when you WILLINGLY enter a warzone.

[ryalf74]

There are lot's of loop holes on the constitution that's why there are many people who abuse it.

[Sawyer]

Yep, the government is slowly eroding away our personal rights.

And no offence, but Churchill was a racist.

There is no offense :p I just like this quote, not the guy.

EDIT: Btw, nearly every single white male before the 1970s was a racist...

[Rincewind]

You waiver your rights to personal safety and freedom when you WILLINGLY enter a warzone.

What defines a warzone?

[John]

What defines a warzone?

Is your life at risk by guns/tanks/weaponry?

[Angel Heart]

What defines a warzone?

If the area is being bombed daily and people are litterally killing each other in the streets over land/religion/whatever, and you decide to go there as a "non-combatant" then you get to find out first hand what its like to be an acceptable civilian casualty.

[Sawyer]

The constitution does not state anywhere that any citizen forfeits their rights in a warzone...

[Wardancer]

Wait. I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly, but what bothers you here is that a "US citizen" didn't have a fair trial? I apologize if I might sound like an alien and a fairly stupid person, but what makes an American deserve more rights than a citizen of another country? If you decide to base your reasoning on a text of law (constitution), I'll only see it as abdicating your moral principles and simply hiding behind a piece of paper.

The purpose of a fair trial is to make sure that no one is convicted wrongfully of a crime. I'd like to point out that even if we use these elaborate processes in our countries, there are still often mistakes being done and people found innocent after many appeals and years in jail. What do you think it's like when you don't even bother to verify information?

When it comes to the drones, we're talking about a system which rely on reasonable doubt (what a police officer needs to arrest you) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (what it takes to declare you guilty, HUGE difference). Also, the usage of drones clearly demonstrate that collateral damage aren't an issue that is even considered. Basically, people are being killed simply because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, what is all this used to prevent? On one hand, we have suspicions of a possible terrorist attack in the future. On the other, we have people killed. Basically, to prevent a damage that is minimal, unsure and in the future, some extremely important damage is being caused in the present with important collateral damage.

Finally, I'd like to ask one question and, hopefully, someone can enlighten me. How many lives of "other" people is the life of one American worth?

[Sawyer]

I say "American" because "American" citizens are guaranteed a fair trial. I am sorry for being ignorant, but I am only familiar with the United States Constitution, not any other countries.

[klae17]

An example of where the government can exercise the opposing right is when there is a hostage situation or when it puts others in danger and the threat must be dealt with. Should we let the mad person do what they want and then trial them? Or should we try to prevent further damage?

[Thanatos]

I'm fairly certain that if you were to look through all of what has been added to the Constitution you would see that they made this legal somehow. That doesn't make it right but people fail to read all the fine print when the government does things. When they pass a big law that ensures safety people fail to notice all of the minor additions that lower their rights.

[Sawyer]

I believe the United States's government is disfuntcional and needs to be changed.

EDIT: When your government gets too corrupt and too powerful, it is the responsibility of the citizens to reset it.

The tree of liberty must be occasionally refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
- Thomas Jefferson

[Wardancer]

Sawyer, my point is that whether it is legal or not, this is of no consequence in a discussion about moral.

What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.

What is illegal isn't necessarily unacceptable.

Law doesn't mean justice and, thankfully, modern jurisprudence theories take this into account.

(This comes from a law graduate so I suppose I can say I'm not completely ignorant when it comes to the legal stuff.)

[Rincewind]

An example of where the government can exercise the opposing right is when there is a hostage situation or when it puts others in danger and the threat must be dealt with. Should we let the mad person do what they want and then trial them? Or should we try to prevent further damage?

In the case you say, I bet everyone agrees to take action. But if an American is hiding in a hut in an African country supporting some hostile (or at least the government percieves as hostile) force, do we blow him up with a drone (btw, drones do more harm than good) or do we capture him and give him a trial?

[Sawyer]

Sawyer, my point is that whether it is legal or not, this is of no consequence in a discussion about moral.

What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.

What is illegal isn't necessarily unacceptable.

Law doesn't mean justice and, thankfully, modern jurisprudence theories take this into account.

(This comes from a law graduate so I suppose I can say I'm not completely ignorant when it comes to the legal stuff.)

True, but I was meaning a legal way. I don't think the U.S. government has the right to kill any people with drones, personally, and I even believe Osama Bin-Laden, as evil as he was, should have recieved a trial at least.

[Zeds]

Honestly, this makes me so mad. Obama came out against Bush's war policies yet he continues to take the lives of American citizens "suspected" to be involved with terrorist organizations. Idiots run rampant worshiping Obama like he's some sort of deity only to find out he's just as bad as the rest. There is no difference between conservatism and liberalism. They're all interested in their own personal gain and nothing else.