BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil? The idea of using the drones on American soil against American citizens should be met with the same level of resistance (or lack thereof) as the use of drones on foreign soil, if the obstacle to the ability to detain and bring to trial these people is of similar magnitude.
If we changed the word "resistance" to "inquiry," then I'd agree with the italicized, but...
The underlined is not the case because the magnitude differs. With international affairs, (1) the costs of judicial action are more prohibitive/inefficient, and (2) there's the combatant/war justification which lowers the price of drone strikes. Therefore, they (USG: Executive, CIA, US Air Force--to name a few) opt for drone strikes instead of extradition. Rendition and assassination special ops are substitutes but are considered to be more costly than drone strikes--in most cases (e.g. OBL).
This may very well be true, although one could envision exceptions to the rule. For example, a lone terrorist found in a country that commonly extradites to the US, versus a terrorist network that manages to set up a veritable bunker somewhere on US soil that would risk a significant number of law enforcement personnel lives to infiltrate. But that wasn't the real point I was making, because the debate about this issue never even gets as far as what you mentioned in the underlined text. I think that if the government intends to kill American citizens then it had better only be in situations where it is exceedingly dangerous to attempt capture. But before we can even bring the debate to that level, we must ask whether there is any meaningful moral or constitutional difference between it being on American soil and it being somewhere else. I think that, on reflection, we can agree that there is not, yet people treat the question of it being on American soil as fundamentally different in nature, based on some of the things I've seen on the media and in this forum.
Mets wrote:Regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil: if the person in question is an American citizen and is actively in the midst of some sort of terrorist plot, what is the difference whether they are on American soil or whether they are on Yemeni soil?
The differences (to be brief):
(1) Legal
There are legal matters at stake here--namely, (a) due process and other protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and (b) there is the concern about the undermining of checks and balances when the executive can commit extrajudicial killings. Even if the courts explicitly approve such killings, thus rendering them legal, there's still the concern that the checks and balances of the three branches would have become less counterbalancing. This can be very problematic because a more authoritarian president is not in the spirit of the US Constitution nor should it be acceptable to American society in general.
Is any of this relevant to the issue of the distinction between foreign and US operations?
There's a law against the CIA which prohibits it from operating within the US. Instead, the FBI has jurisdiction, so...
(2) Presence of Substitutes already being used:
The FBI already engage in sting operations to capture and prosecute "lone wolves" (i.e. potential terrorists who are not currently part of a terrorist organization yet may commit a terrorist act). So, why use drone strikes when the government is already using 'proper' substitutes?
You're comparing apples to oranges here. If there really were just a lone terrorist, then this person could presumably just as easily be captured on foreign territory by the local government and extradited to the US (the price issue then does become relevant, but that's not a legal argument, which is what I was getting at. I obviously recognize that there's a pragmatic difference between the two alternatives; I was asking for any details that address the constitutionality of the act, which is what is getting all the attention). What we are concerned with is people in complicated networks who cannot easily be captured without substantial risk to law enforcement personnel.
But at any rate, capturing someone with manpower is a much more substantial risk to FBI human capital. No one except the terrorist dies in a well-executed drone strike (not that we have very many well-executed drone strikes under our belt, by that standard).
(3) War Justification/Subversion of the Rule of Law
(a) There's plenty of Laws and Acts which approve of killing US citizens without trial. For example, in times of emergency like in Katrina, martial law was imposed, so the military was simply shooting people without holding trials so that 'law and order' could be maintained.
(b) There's the noncombatant v. combatant debate. If domestic terrorists are deemed combatants, they could be labeled as some kind of domestic rebel force; therefore, the government could dig through the hodge-podge of US laws and find whatever justifies 'extrajudicial' killings. This would pose an alarming prospect.
Again, how is this relevant to whether the person is on foreign or domestic soil?