Comments on: “UK advocacy group proposes to sue predator drone operators”

By: No Name Guy

No Name Guy — Fri, 13 May 2011 00:31:56 +0000

James

Someone tries to kill me, or makes a credible threat to do so (“I’m going to kill you sucka” while reaching into their pocket), it’s fair game for me to draw and shoot them first. That’s a basic principal of self defense.

Translated to the international realm: These individuals and groups have made clear they intend to kill Americans, period, by both their statements and past actions. The past actions give credence to their statements or threats of future violence. By the same principal as an individual has to self defense, it’s fair game that the US Government shoots them first to defend the citizenry of the US. That’s one task clearly spelled out in the Constitution – to provide for the common defense.

These individuals are free to live a life of peace and honest labor – they’ve instead chosen to live by the sword. That they die by the sword…..meh. Send ’em to he**, the faster, the better.

And that’s an argument made on first principals of morality and law. Self defense isn’t a crime.

By: Invid

Invid — Thu, 12 May 2011 23:43:44 +0000

Targeted killing= we got the person we were aiming at (who knows if he/she did anything to deserve it). We also got the poor bastard who lives next door and never bothered anyone and the kids playing in the street too.

USA! USA!

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Thu, 12 May 2011 14:14:08 +0000

Sure, James. The legal system in any country is fully competent to deal with war. ‘Fairness’ is not a hallmark of war, in case you hadn’t noticed. And while it might not have been my house or my SUV that’s been attacked wantonly, it has been my friends, my neighbors, and my family, and my country. Including above Lockerbie.

‘Justice’ is another word we might want to bring into the conversation, perhaps to replace legalistic textualism.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:19:14 +0000

Quite right, James. Targeted killings are wrong, since it means that the people who give the orders are not given increased protection. Bombs should kill random people. That’s fair.

Bob

By: James

James — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:10:24 +0000

Look at all the other commenter pathetically trying to hide behind legalisms (wfjag, Benjamin) and appeals to force (John, Bumper). I wonder how they’d feel if a foreign country dropped a bomb on their SUVs and Mini Mansions, perhaps killing a family member or two. Would they be satisfied with ‘well, it’s a foreign country so there’s nothing we can do?’ I assume you guys were all for seeking a dismissal of Lockerbie claims based on similar concepts of sovereignty? You know, there might be a defensible philosophical position here as it relates to sovereign rights or whatever, but even wfjag and Benjamin aren’t interested in articulating such as position as you are in having things play out your way, fairness be damned.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 12 May 2011 08:09:27 +0000

Or just classify as top secret who the predator drone operators are.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Wed, 11 May 2011 15:16:52 +0000

John’s got the right idea here, a couple of fly-overs should reset their respect-o-meters. If not we can always sic a Google Earth team on them.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 11 May 2011 15:07:27 +0000

I think the geographic coordinates of their HQ would be useful. Just sayin’…

By: wfjag

wfjag — Wed, 11 May 2011 14:33:01 +0000

The Military Claims Act, 10 USC 2733, is the only waiver of sovereign immunity that may apply. However, there is no judicial review of claims under that statute. Further, the majority of the Courts of Appeal have held that when Congress has provided for a remedy by statute, Bivens torts are barred.

Guess that folks in the UK haven’t heard of sovereign immunity, it being a common law concept.

I hope that they do sue, and that the USDC Judge has the fortitude to hit the attorneys and clients with stiff Rule 11 sanctions for completely frivilous litigation.