DOJ Justifies Drone Strikes Against Americans

I don't doubt it. As a country, we have been less and less worried about our liberties and ethical national behavior and more and more willing to ignore the sovereignty of other nations in trade for some perceived (and almost certainly short term) increase in security pretty consistently since 2001. See The Patriot Act, Iraq, Gitmo, TSA, and the most recent NDAA for just a few examples. Why should drones be any different?

 

The FBI Director, Robert Mueller, said he's going to have to check to see if the president has the right to kill citizens on American soil......... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!? The FBI Director is going to have to check????? Un-effing-believable!

 

The accusation was not that Democrats were maintaining a strange silence. It was about "liberals." I produced references to what are regularly described here as "liberal" media outlets, one of which actually broke this story. I also cited a "liberal" commenter (one of many) who strongly criticized this policy.

There have been two groups who have been historically the most critical of the executive use of drones, in my opinion: Social libertarians, and liberals. It was only after the "liberal" NBC news broke this story that suddenly the conservatives saw an opportunity to add it to their knee-jerk criticism of the Obama administration.

One conservative member of this board admitted that at least some of the talking heads on the right who are yalping loudly now about this story likely wouldn't raise a peep if the policy were being pursued by a Republican president.

I agree with the analysis put forward by IQless 1 and yourself regarding the direction in which this country is heading. That doesn't mean I agree with that direction. Don't forget; we've always been at war with Eastasia.

* * *​

America has the choice to adhere to its Constitution. It doesn't have to become that which is contrary to its founding principles, even if some are willing to go that vile route.

 

Sorry all, I'm trying to be gentle lol...and I'm trying to avoid agreeing with republicans like Lindsey Graham (not to confused with Graham Lindsey, punk rocker from Madison, Wisconsin) and Mitch McConnell (not to be confused with "human"), since they are both devious bastards who sold a significant portion of their souls for power and gold a long time ago. Unlike them, and despite my association with them on this point, my soul isn't taking a hit over this.

Congress authorized the President to conduct the War on Terror, so I don't see it as a constitutional abuse. Unlike Bush, Jr., Obama isn't invading sovereign countries here. He isn't assassinating, or otherwise removing a foreign nation's leader, as Jr. did. He's targeting specific individuals known to be actively pursuing mass murder, specifically the mass murder of American civilians. He's doing it in countries that allow it, though many people in those countries disapprove of their leaders allowing it.

 

"Democrats" refers to a political party. "Liberals" refers to an ideology. Those Democrats who have adopted a liberal ideology certainly seem to have remained silent on this issue while those Democrats who adhere to a more conservative viewpoint are more vocal. Where are the voices of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin or Barbara Boxer?

I think it's humorous when you keep saying "broke the story". I hope you realize that the DOJ memo had to be given to a media outlet from someone inside the DOJ in order for it to be revealed. It's curious that it was given to NBC News instead of FOX News. Just sayin'.

Good! At least there's one!

Let's make a distinction here. "... critical of the executive use of drones" or "... critical of the executive use of drones to kill Americans in violation of due process". There's a difference. As I've stated, and most liberals on this forum appear to agree, the use of drones in war is acceptable. However, the use of drones to kill Americans in violation of due process is unacceptable. There shouldn't even be a question about it. The FBI Director is going to check on that last one to see if it's OK. At least one liberal on this forum agrees that it's acceptable. Allow me to quote:

There you go again...

Not at all. I've been against the use of drones to kill Americans in violation of due process ever since Obama killed al-Alawki and Khan.

Let's be realistic here. Certainly, there are going to be pundits on both sides who are disingenuous when it comes to their opinions. EVERYONE should be upset about this issue, but those on the Left are... yes, I'll say it again... strangely silent. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

I don't like the direction this country is heading either. I'll be damned if it's not the liberals who are leading us in that direction.

An intelligent observation. We should adhere to our Constitution and founding principles, but how many liberals here would like to limit our Constitutional rights? Due process doesn't seem to be much of a concern for them and neither does our right to bear firearms.

 

The Constitution of the United States, in Article 1, section 9, specifically prohibits Congress from passing bills of attainder. This is clearly explained in the piece by Juan Cole to which I linked earlier.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states that citizens of the United States shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and no, the president of the United States adding your name to a kill list is not due process.

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." The president of the United States adding your name to a kill list is not a speedy and public trial, by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, of course you or anybody else are free to disagree with the above, and explain the reasons why the kill list policy is constitutional. I think you should be reminded that just because the Congress passed the AUMF, that doesn't give the president carte blanche to ignore the Consititution. This is a matter of the United States taking upon itself the authority to kill its own citizens without benefit of trial. One would think that more than just the say-so of a president and his attorney general would be required before citizens would agree to such a thing, but obviously that isn't necessarily the case.

 

Don't forget the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

One thing that surprises me somewhat is the sudden anger over it. Yes, the release of the details was the trigger, but I thought of this as common knowledge for years.

I'm not entirely surprised, of course, but the level of squawking is a lot more than I would have thought possible. I doubt this level will be sustained for long, and I am enjoying some of the bickering among republicans on FOX News (snickers..."News"...), so I am not overly concerned that Democrats will allow this to fracture the party. I'd also agree with your statement that liberals and social libertarians are the biggest squawkers, and that republicans will use it in any way they can to foment more distrust in Obama.

I also have to wonder where America would be now if McCain had defeated Obama in 2008. I could see him demanding we attack, or even invade, countries like North Korea, Iran, and Syria (as well as a few others, like Russia, after the Georgia incident, and even though it preceded his potential Presidency).

If Romney had defeated Obama in 2012, the squawking from the Democrats would indeed be much louder and more directed at the President. I myself would still be arguing my points, irregardless of who was President, but concede the point that the Democrats would certainly use it to attack Romney.

 

I was tempted to add "didn't they?" to the quote you address, which would still have led to your argument above.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation of Law, or the constitution,...I'm disagreeing with Law, in general...in that Law is much much less dear to me than what is right and wrong.

The Americans targeted are in a legal loophole. On the one hand, your points have merit legally, but my argument is that, due to the unique situation, some of those rules and Laws will be updated to address this type of situation. I know you're not arguing that those American-born terrorists be allowed to succeed, but these loopholes are temporary.

Currently, as American-born terrorists living abroad, having NOT joined a foreign army or state-sponsored militia, their citizenship cannot be revoked...from what I understand. However, since they have indeed joined, or otherwise associated themselves, with an organization that has declared War on America, they are in fact traitors. Sooner or later the Law will address these loopholes, and rightly so, IMO.

 

So let me ask you a question. Are you saying that when US troops are being shot at an army, they have to make sure there are no Americans in that army before they shoot back?

 

If the constitution was perfect, there would never be any need for any other Law. It isn't, of course, so arguments quoting constitutional law/rights is a bit too picky for my taste. It has merit, yes, but it lacks absolute authority, since it is flawed.

 

NO! It is perfect....unless the Supreme Court decides that under the Constitution, abortion is legal. Well then, it is just a piece of old paper.

 

The funny part of this whole "controversy" is that it was the NeoCons along with the Bush Administration that gave the president these powers in the first place. Now, they are all up their own cracks that Obama is using it. They also created Gitmo and now are attacking Obama for not closing it while they actively block to funding necessary to close it. They refused to investigate the Bush Administration for their claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a justification for taking us to war there. They refused to investigate Reagan for 299 dead Americans in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing but they can't stop investigating Benghzi. Anybody see a pattern here or is it just me?

 

Hmmmm!

And what has Obama done for Benghazi? So far, he has lied to the public and hidden the facts.

 

I can't answer this poorly worded question on behalf of CoinOKC, and it's not clear to whom it is addressed. However, I will venture to reply.

A free fire zone in which active combat is being pursued is not the same thing as a drone circling above a car driving down a road. That said, if a person is firing weapons at American military personnel, they have the ability to defend themselves according to the rules of engagement then in effect. The nationality of the person or persons actively shooting at the military personnel usually is not an issue in rules of engagement (except in cases of "friendly fire"), to my knowledge.

This question seems to be coming from a position of not recognizing the difference between self-defense in an active combat situation, and cold-blooded extra-judicial killing. Nor does it address the questions of constitutionality raised by a policy of execution of citizens without due process. Instead, it seems to be based on an irrational "kill-em-all" hysteria.

 

Now that we have figured out that these do not necessarily apply to war zones, all we need to do is define war zones.
OK! So would someone making RPG's be considered "active combat"?

 

Instead of blathering, why don't you give us your opinion?

 

Already answered.

And, FWIW, I checked and he really did not criticize Bush. Too bad he will not give me the same courtesy.

 

Already did several times (go back and read) and was already attacked by those that couldn't give theirs. How brave of them!

I have really grown to love your standards....Both of them. They say 2 is better than 1 and you have the double standards to prove it.

 

Still waiting, mr. hitler impersonator