

This Isn't Hard, Mr. President: Can You Kill Us on American Soil or Not? - tesmar2
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/this-isnt-hard-mr-president-do-you-think-you-can-kill-us-on-american-soil-or-not/273207/

======
fjorder
Let me rephrase the question in way that is probably more likely to be thought
about by a second-term president:

"Given that you obviously feel you can kill foreign citizens in their own
countries along with an "acceptable" number of innocents without fear of
reprisal, do you feel you can do the same in your own country where you have
complete authority?"

While I feel many of Obama's policies are laudable, I think his wanton
disregard for international law is reprehensible and ultimately doing more
harm than good. Extraterritorial strikes are based on the classic notion of
attrition warfare. i.e. If you kill enough of the enemy eventually there won't
be any left. This strategy failed in Vietnam, failed in Iraq, and is in the
final stages of failing in Afghanistan. What should make Pakistan any
different? If it weren't for the Taliban's own atrocities (e.g. The shooting
of Malala Yousufzai), anti-American sentiment and pro-Taliban support would be
at an all time high due to outrage over the regular violation of Pakistan's
sovereignty by drone attacks.

These strikes also set a very ugly precedent. As private use of UAV's begins
to take off, it's going to become increasingly hard to prevent foreign
interests from using them on U.S. soil. e.g. How will police be able to
distinguish a tacocopter in San Francisco from a UAV packing a charge of
explosives for an assassination? If foreign countries have the capability of
killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil who are inconvenient to _their_ interests,
what legitimate protest could the U.S. possibly raise against the practice at
this point?

------
ctdonath
Sometimes the lack of an answer IS the answer. He won't say "yes", ever, to
such a question - but the fact that he didn't say "no" immediately and
unequivocally means his answer is "yes".

Insofar as any justification via "invasion or insurrection" clauses may apply,
war must be declared - and, in the issue at hand, it hasn't.

Given the recent propensity for this administration to paint "tea party" types
as some form of "terrorist", some of us are rather concerned.

