General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen [View all]stupidicus
(2,570 posts)"The largest problem in discussion of this matter is that it does not fit neatly into familiar categories, leaving people to choose that which suits them best, rather than that which might be the most accurate fit."
translation: some of you people are too ignorant to know or understand an extremely finite body of knowledge (laws applicable) and definitions (enemy combatants/terrorists) and therefore have it all wrong, and you therefore should listen to me because I have it all right.
The fact of the matter is, there are two different issues here, one being the use of drones period, and the other being whether Americans can be targeted. Secondly, there are the questions of legality (hence the UN investigation) AND the wisdom/prudence of and the conflict that poses in using them as they have been used even if they are ultimately declared "legal".
For example:
He fears that if the United States does not lead in developing an ethical and legal policy framework on the use of drones, decades worth of international law will be undermined and other countries that are close to developing their own drones, particularly China and Russia, will abuse them. http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/john-brennan-s-love-hate-relationship-with-drones-20130207
There is also more to consider in terms of drone strikes period as a legal matter http://livingunderdrones.org/report-legality/ than your limited analysis considered, beyond concluding that "My personal view is that the matter ought to be regarded as warfare.". Well hey, my personal view is the opposite, particularly where Americans are targeted under the current standards laid out in the "memo", that should be voided for vagueness. It doesn't matter whose "personal view" prevails as a legal matter, because most like me that take the opposite side of the one you're on don't care if it's "legal" (though we question that) or not, but rather object to their use in the way they've been used on moral, etc grounds. Anything not a war of aggression is "legal" too, but that hardly means we can't object, no?
Given the array of opinion ranging from polls http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/us-drone-public-opinion_n_2639107.html?utm_hp_ref=politics showing almost half of Americans thinking targeting Americans a no no, to all the "minds" out there not some obscure poster on DU like you and I that disagree with the conclusions of your knowledge monopoly-based analysis and conclusions, you'll have to excuse me if I scoff at the notion that you're uniquely qualified to determine what others do not know or understand, and that what you think you know and comprehensively understand must lead inexorably to the right legal "fits".
As a "legal" matter this is not as cut and dry as your analysis and conclusions appear to make it, and given your focus on the "pro" side of things to the exclusion of all the "con" that aggravate your case, it can be reasonably argued that you left many a puzzle piece off the table that "fit" into the finished product, whether they are ultimately determined to be "blanks/meritless" or not in the course of the legal dispute.
Far higher authorities than we obscure DUers will determine the legal questions, and regardless who prevails on that between us, there's still room for disagreement as to whether the "right" legal conclusion was reached. We see that all the time. Ultimately should your side prevail, this is gonna boil down to the individuals sense of right and wrong, like whether you can accept the "collateral damage" or American citizens being targeted by the exec branch alone without due process.
It ain't gonna be because some obscure DUer declares those that take the opposite side are confused simpletons lacking sufficient knowledge and/or understanding of the issues. Personally I found your effort here highly amusing for the aforementioned reasons, but not informative at all.
It's pretty much the standard droner stuff in form and substance, that is lacking a bit on the latter, given the intent as stated in the opening remark seemed to promise an "edumacation" to us ignorant and confused ones.