US Debating Whether to Kill American Suspect via Drone

[Aglifter]

It is - there's no difference, legally, between a drone strike, or sending in a group to arrest the individual.

And, either he's in a war zone, acting as a member of an enemy force, or his a jackass being a criminal.

Think about this - as they didn't not say the country - this could be a US citizen in Germany or the UK, that the local cops haven't been able to arrest - or someone hiding in some of the "no go" areas of France or Germany.

[Kommander]

It is - there's no difference, legally, between a drone strike, or sending in a group to arrest the individual.

Do you mean in general or in the specific instance where an individual has allied themselves with a "hostile power" at war with the US?

[Aesop]

It is - there's no difference, legally, between a drone strike, or sending in a group to arrest the individual.

That's only true overseas, in respect to both being equivalent violations of international law, by violating another sovereign nation's territory.

Hereabouts, I'm calling shenanigans on any supposed equivalence of an apprehension, which might subsequently go sideways, versus straight out execution via high explosive, which is designed to go sideways.

Otherwise we could simply replace the cops here with the Ed-209 and call it even.

In any U.S. state where the feds use a Hellfire for any such "apprehension", and the governor doesn't respond by ordering the immediate arrest and incarceration of all federal agents within their jurisdiction UFN, and authorize shooting them on sight if they resist or evade, the citizenry should do so in his stead, or simply sew trapdoors on their underpants and practice grabbing their ankles for the rest of their lives, because at that point hey have left the republic. May their chains rest lightly on their wrists, and time forget they were ever our countrymen.

[Aglifter]

It is - there's no difference, legally, between a drone strike, or sending in a group to arrest the individual.

That's only true overseas, in respect to both being equivalent violations of international law, by violating another sovereign nation's territory.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. That was my point. If they are willing to commit an act of war against a nation by sending in a drone, they have the same legal standing as if they sent in a team to attempt to capture the individual - but, an attempt to capture would comply with the USCON - it does not have a "it's difficult" exception.

This is no different, legally, than our refusal to turn Soros over to Hungary to face trial for his crimes there - except Hungary lacks our military power.

Lest I make things even muddier - I am comfortable with sending in a capture team - I realize many countries do not have sufficient rule of law to capture villians in their territory. Violating international law does not bother me, within reason

[Kommander]

Ok I understand. You were just talking about international law, not constitutional law.

[Aesop]

The bigger unspoken issue is an administration that sees the former supplanting the latter, mainly for the personal convenience of a tyrannical Executive.

[Aglifter]

Ok I understand. You were just talking about international law, not constitutional law.

Well, US Law is also implicated. EG, there are plenty of terrorists in the UK - walking around a Muslim area of London in '05, I saw ads at every travel agency for costs of flying to Baghdad.

But, if Obama were to suddenly order a drone attack on that area of London, Congress would, most likely, suddenly start remembering that it is supposed to declare war.