[skeptic-1]

Zeroing in on the question.

Can Obama commission a drone strike on US citizens in the U.S. by another country ?

[skeptic-1]

The legal/ illegal use of drones:

Of international interest (except Great Britain ?)

[U184]

Can Obama commission a drone strike on US citizens in the U.S. by another country ?

What?

What do you mean by "by another country"?

There seems to be a slight communication gap going on here. Could you please reword?

[Rei Murasame]

I assume he's referring to the fact of the matter of this map: [Link]

He's asking if the United States could turn a blind eye toward countries like France, United Kingdom, Canada, or Mexico, giving such countries the ability to enter American airspace unchallenged, and to use their own UAVs, UCAVs, and ISR aircraft, to summarily kill an American citizen within the United States. Assuming that the citizen is a person that the United States would like to be rid of, and that allied country has done the necessary paperwork and procedures to get the strike authorised on their own end.

Allowing that, would presumably make an end-run around the American legal system.

[skeptic-1]

I assume he's referring to the fact of the matter of this map: [Link]

He's asking if the United States could turn a blind eye toward countries like France, United Kingdom, Canada, or Mexico, giving such countries the ability to enter American airspace unchallenged, and to use their own UAVs, UCAVs, and ISR aircraft, to summarily kill an American citizen within the United States. Assuming that the citizen is a person that the United States would like to be rid of, and that allied country has done the necessary paperwork and procedures to get the strike authorised on their own end.

Allowing that, would presumably make an end-run around the American legal system.

The question was asked because we use our drones "with permission" of another country "within their country"

Can we can do the same ? Or if the Pres. cannot by our laws give permission neither should an other country have that lawful power to do so, and it is illegal that we use our drones to kill in any country where we are not at war. We are the world's worst police men !

[U184]

Looks like Rei was right again...oh wait, never mind.

The question was asked because we use our drones "with permission" of another country "within their country"

Can we can do the same ? Or if the Pres. cannot by our laws give permission neither should an other country have that lawful power to do so, and it is illegal that we use our drones to kill in any country where we are not at war. We are the world's worst police men !

One would have to check executive orders, however, even if legal, I doubt that any such permissions would be given.

In many instances the US Government seeks approval prior to using aerial reconnaissance and in many, if not most all cases, they get it.

Other countries would prefer not to mobilize their soldiers in response to American militant forces on their soil.
Both Afghanistan and Pakistan, have cooperative agreements with the United States. Both of those countries have integrated military forces that consist of their forces and US forces.

Often times a combined, or joint force, as described above, will also have an observer for their country, the US and sometimes even the UN.


So as you can see, there are many aspects to such aerial reconnaissance. The use of drones does not go hand in hand with combat either, as they are used in many various ways, from search and rescue, to helping to find illegal narcotics.

Using drones reduces the hostilities that such ground forces might, or rather, would encounter, or create by searching for people within a foreign nation.


As for what should and should not be legal, each country has their own set of rules.


I assume what you actually meant was, why should a country do something that America would not do?

I would say, they have many reasons and I outline a few of them above.

[skeptic-1]

A good factual reply BUT the more we skip around our U.S.Constitution the more we legitimize Rouge violence as different strokes for different folks.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't understand either of your responses. It's almost like you two are not speaking the same language as me.

[U184]

That would be because...... wait for it.......you understood the OP incorrectly.

Interesting how, when you are wrong, you claim ignorance....Huh, what, who.....me? I had a friend that did that in grade school, I can only hope that he has moved past that stage in life.

Have a good day Rei.

[Rei Murasame]

It looked to me as though he was asking if the United States can invite another country to use a UCAV to assassinate someone on American soil. My response to that was 'yes', and a description of how that could be done.

Both of you then acted as though this is not what the thread is about, and since I can't very well say "both of you are being ridiculous", I opted for the diplomatic approach which is to say that maybe we "seem not to be speaking the same language".

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Zeroing in on the question.

Can Obama commission a drone strike on US citizens in the U.S. by another country ?

No. America doesn't allow other nations to conduct drone strikes against US citizens on our soil, since we're too busy conducting drone strikes against civilian targets in other nations. I fail to see the hypocrisy there.

[U184]

We are kinda on the same page Rei, except for some mid points...

Then however, you add in shit like this and call someone else bad...

"both of you are being ridiculous"

Rei, please feel free to stop with the harassment,, the constant trolling is tiresome.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't do trolling. Everything I say is serious, unless I make some bold indication that it is intended to be a joke (and even if I make a joke, my idea of a joke is a serious statement or a question at the end of a serious statement which happens to have funny implications - in other words the limits of my humour are 'dark humour' and 'savage humour'. I simply do not do humour that involves play-acting or pretending about anything). This is mainly because - as everyone surely knows by now - I don't have a grasp of the type of humour that trolling requires. But if you want to ask me more questions on really obvious things, ask it in TLTE and stop derailing every thread like this.

[skeptic-1]

Never explain !

Never complain !

Just keep trucking !

All with a smile on your face :-)

[skeptic-1]

I Think Obama is trying to move the USA in the right direction for the future BUT...

If his power extends to the degree he can permit by executive order a foreign nation to kill American citizens using for instance drones

(without what we have been led to believe is due process) "effective or not" we no longer resemble what we tell the kiddies we are and

stand for. IMO each party involved is guilty of causing an Abortion of concepts long held of the sacredness of our ones borders for the

benefit of those within. We are talking about a power that cannot be delegated.

[welcometohavoc]

I can certainly see drone strikes being used in a close allied country, or even the US within the near future. People don't realise how bad it's gotten in the US. All the fears people had about the Patriot Act are coming true. They said the govt wouldn't spy on us, they are. They said our civil liberties would not be infringed, they are. They're doing it slowly, so that people won't notice right away, but it is happening.

[Dyon]

European allies other than Britain generally refrain from using drones to attack al-Qaeda, but frequently share intelligence that assists the drone program in selecting targets.

Drone technology used back in the US is already long under way. For example (from July):

[Source]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued certificates for two types of unmanned aircraft for civilian use. The move is expected to lead to the first approved commercial drone operation later this summer.

The two unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are the Scan Eagle X200 and Aero Vironment’s PUMA. They both measure around 4 ½ feet long, weighing less than 55 pounds, and have a wing span of ten and nine feet respectively.

Both the Scan Eagle and the PUMA received “restricted category type certificates”which permit aerial surveillance. Prior to the FAA’s decision, the only way the private sector could operate UAS in US airspace was by obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate which specifically restricts commercial operations.

The PUMA is expected to support emergency response crews for wildlife surveillance and oil spill monitoring over the Beaufort Sea to the north of Canada and Alaska. The Scan Eagle will be used by a major energy company off the Alaskan Coast to survey ice floes and migrating whales in Arctic oil exploration areas.

The issuing of the certificates is seen as an important step to integrating UAS into US airspace. Both drone operations will meet the requirements of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which includes a mandate to increase Arctic UAS commercial operations.

Most non-military use of drones in the US has so far been limited to the police and other government agencies. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in March that drones will soon be used by the NYPD and will become as ubiquitous as security cameras.

Documents released by the American civil Liberties Union (ACLU) via the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that the US Marshals Service has also experimented with the use of drones for domestic surveillance.

Military drones are used extensively by the US Air Force for targeting terrorist suspects in several countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

The strikes have been highly controversial, as they are ordered without the knowledge or participation of the countries concerned, and are sometimes inaccurate and kill civilians.

Pakistan’s relations with the US have been soured because of drone strikes. Just last month, the new government in Islamabad summoned a top US envoy who was given a letter of protest against drone strikes by the US military.

In May, a Pakistani court ruled that US drone strikes in its tribal regions should be considered war crimes, and that the government should use force to protect its civilians.

To answer the actual question: no.

No American president would risk information leaking of another country using drones to kill a U.S citizen. Imagine the outcry caused.

[Oxymoron]

Yes he would have that authority, since we would be living in a third world hell hole like Pakistan if that would be the situation. Otherwise America is the supreme power, if someone is going to drone an American its going to be the American drones, flown by American pilots, or Skynet.

[Hirdmann]

Zeroing in on the question.

Can Obama commission a drone strike on US citizens in the U.S. by another country ?

Why wouldn't he just order the drone strike himself? He's got plenty of them...