President has the right to use drones in the USA on American citizens

I've never defended Dostum, once again putting words in my mouth. The only Northern Alliance faction I advocated was Ahmad Shah Massoud's. I'd like to know where I'm even defending the actions of Northern Alliance? If you bother to actually re-read my post, I said the Mujahideen were the 'freedom fighters'. Just as the Taliban is not the same, neither is the Northern Alliance. There's no scapegoating of Pakistan, they are guilty of everything I accuse them of, are you denying they fully backed the Taliban? Are you denying they continue to support them today, even while sending troops to die fighting them?
Sure, the UIF were hardly angels, but they (Massoud's faction) advocated a secular democracy with equal rights, and were by far the lesser of two evils. They certainly wouldn't have harboured Al Qaeda and allowed them to plan attacks on the West. There's no hypocrisy at all, you need to stop trying to compare unequal situations.

Where have I purported this assertion? I don't get what you're asking or trying to get out of me.

They are perfectly extra-judicial; these people had no access to judicial process, their death warrants were signed personally by Obama, and the evidence that they were 'enemy combatants' has often been poor, and much of it kept secret. What we do know is that this evidence has often been so misguided that entire groups of people have been attacked because congregating together is suspicious. The legality of the US' use of drones is currently under investigation by the UN, but meanwhile the death toll of known innocents continues to rise as the US makes clear its disregard for human rights.

Didn't Massoud advocate an Islamic state? If no, can you provide me with a source..

Didn't Massoud advocate an Islamic state? If no, can you provide me with a source..

They are perfectly extra-judicial; these people had no access to judicial process, their death warrants were signed personally by Obama, and the evidence that they were 'enemy combatants' has often been poor, and much of it kept secret. What we do know is that this evidence has often been so misguided that entire groups of people have been attacked because congregating together is suspicious. The legality of the US' use of drones is currently under investigation by the UN, but meanwhile the death toll of known innocents continues to rise as the US makes clear its disregard for human rights.

Regardless of how clear the guilt of some people seems to be, it's never right for one person to be judge jury and executioner. If Obama can sign the death warrant of anyone by declaring them an enemy combatant, what happens when all the people who oppose him conveniently get deemed "enemy combatants"?

We presume people to be innocent until the judicial process rules otherwise. That means a judge, a jury, the defendent getting legal advice and defence, the evidence being presented fully, and the jury judging the defendent on the evidence.

Excellent post. The asymmetrical conduct of warfare and the blurred distinction of combatant and non-combatant in this discussion has been severely overlooked.

So its not really about the killing, its just about making it fair? What exactly is the difference between killing someone from a base in the US electronically or sending a SEAL team to do the job for you on the ground? If you are Obama very little. Much the same as for whether US citizens die at the hands of the USSR or lightly armed peasant warrior on United 93. If you are the person dying the end result is the same.

You used the word bully

As I stated and you ignored, as you have multiple times in this thread, its not a hard to sell. These groups are targeting US civilians, and US civilians matter more than Pakistani ones. It may not stand up to reason but that is how it is in reality. As for the second part I have lost you, the drone strikes are in Pakistan and Yemen for the most part, the war is in Afghanistan, and in no way could be classed as low risk to US personnel. Unless you are referring to the general war on terror. The war in terror was very high risk very boots on the ground, and look at the results in terms of dismantling Al-Qaeda, then compare it to the drone program, its clear which one is going to be the preferred option. The cheaper, easier to sell, effective one.

You can use terms like cowardly but the guy giving the orders the guy signing the papers doesn't get his hands dirty either way. Whether its a drone or guy in budgie smugglers with a knife, Obama and his team are still in Washington.

I'd just like to quickly address the issue of "protecting" soldiers as a rationale for anything, including drone usage. Soldiers aren't just used for killing, particularly when an army is occupying another country, it's important for soldiers to build rapport with the local populace. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US' shoot first, ask questions later (less risk to the soldiers in question) behaviour may actually have increased the level of insurgency, creating more enemies, and prolonging the conflict. As OP alluded to earlier, drones may soon be autonomous. They are ALREADY being used to eliminate suspects, rather than risk US lives in trying to capture and bring them to trial to determine their guilt. Where George Bush captured and kept prisoners without charges, Obama simply dismembers them from a distance. It's a much more efficient way of waging "war"/dealing with "enemies".

But this protection of US lives may actually be endangering them further down the road, as the US creates more enemies than can destroy.

it is sometimes very difficult to see US attacks as moral.

It wouldn't be an act of war, because it would be legal in the US, therefore the UK govt would (as always) succumb and permit any such actions.