Skip to comments.Is there ever a good reason to allow the killing of American citizens without due process?
Posted on 02/07/2013 6:40:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Congressional intelligence committee members are going to find out today how the Justice Department has rationalized the killing of Americans by drone strike without due process. The Obama administration has authorized the release of a classified report that goes into detail about how DoJ arrived at their controversial conclusions on not only drone strikes, but rendition and certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a committee member who had pressed the administration to provide the opinion, left open the possibility he might still try to block Brennan's nomination. He said turning over the opinion was a good first step.
"I'm committed to making sure that we get all the facts," Wyden said on NBC's "Today" show. "Early this morning, I'm going to be going in to read the opinion. We'll go from there."
Wyden said "there are still substantial questions" about how the administration justifies and plans drone strikes. "The Founding Fathers thought the president should have significant power in the national security arena. But there have to be checks and balances," Wyden said. "You can't just skirt those checks and balances if you think it's inconvenient."
An unclassified memo leaked this week says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior al-Qaida leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans, even if there is no evidence of a specific imminent attack.
That unclassified memo is based on classified advice from the Office of Legal Counsel that is being made available to the intelligence committees' members, the official said. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the decision and requested anonymity.
You wouldn't hesitate to kill a fellow American if you were facing him on a battlefield.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
* The Killing of Confederate Soldiers during the Civil War. Were they considered American Citizens then, or fighters from another country?
* There were a few instances in World War II where German American citizens, fighting for the Nazis were killed by American troops. Nobody was concerned then about whether the enemy’s constitutional rights had been respected.
Is there EVER a good reason?
On the battlefield fighting against the US
When in the midst of any crime from treason to threatening the life of another.
Never for any political or ideological reason. Treason ONLY when it is in the act of being carried out and lethal force must be used.
I do not worry about Americans being killed on the present context. If they are targeted, they are allied with our enemies, who have such low morals that they make nazis look good.
What I worry about is the Obamadork’s group of felon/cretins making plans to do anything of this sort here in the mainland.
Sure there is! Enemies of the US don’t need any due process of law. Nazi, Soviet and Japanese soldiers during WWII, Al Qaeda fighters today. President Obama.
I’m more worried about the use of drones over U.S. soil.
Just look at all those red light and speed cameras. Pretty soon they’ll be using drones to send you tickets for not wearing your seat belt.
More seriously, considering how the FBI overreacted a bit in arresting the Michigan Militia folks, imagine had they decided to perform a drone strike instead?
I’d say something like that is within the realm of possibility. After all, those no-knock warrant situations are very dangerous for the officers involved.
Killing someone on the battlefield is one thing. Killing them because you suspect they may be plotting something is a whole other ball game.
After all, we’re now one step away from doing this here in America. Think about it. The Hutaree were accused of plotting against America and all were acquitted.
A drone strike could have saved government of all the embarrassment of getting caught setting up American militia members.
Only if they are trying to kill you.
Its a very difficult problem. If an American citizen goes abroad and gives aid, comfort and advice to an enemy who is trying to kill US soldiers or citizens, is that person a legitimate target? Better ask John Kerry, Bill Ayers, and Jane Fonda. Why only drones, why not CIA assassins?
Weird thing is we are sending gold and arms to our enemies. And our rulers refuse to declare our enemies as "enemies".
You mean like Keith Ratliff and John Noveske?
RE: Only if they are trying to kill you.
Does this include giving AID to people who are trying to kill you?
Not American citizens. But the threat of drones to motivate illegal immigrants to hustle home is worth considering.. ;-)
Nobody was checking passports either. In combat/warfare all enemies on the field are fair game because of imminent danger and self defense.
What is the issue being discussed is kill lists targeting US citizens -joy stick killings in non combat areas where the only imminent danger is the loss of a drone.
I can accept executions as long as those executed are provided some form of due process that extends beyond just the Executive branch. I as well see no reason the enemy list should not be published like a most wanted list and I would even go so far as keeping score on who is killed and who remains at large. IF all is really above board then there is no reason to hide this US citizen kill list from the public to scrutinize or our enemies to fear.
Not only within the realm of possibility. It’s the plan. Federal agencies have got billions of rounds of hollow-point bullets to use in the metropolitan areas when TSHTF, but they need an efficient way to “take care of” those who prepared ahead of time and went off the grid.
Just be sure we don’t waterboard them.
If American “citizens” actively aiding and abetting the Enemy overseas, then they get what they get. To me, once someone crosses that line, that is a defacto renouncement of their citizenship. I would have shed zero tears if the likes of John Walker Lind get killed by a drone strike or other military means.
In both of those examples, it was clearly a war zone, and it was man-to-man combat, so that’s one obvious difference of many that have been brought up in this discussion.
Here’s one that isn’t making the rounds yet: What if China, for example, gets a fleet of drones and decides to do the same thing, ‘cuz hey, the US says there’s no problem, right? How cool would any of us be with any number of drones from any number of countries raining down bombs on any number of people in any number of countries?
In both the cases you cited, those American citizens were part of an organized opposing force in the uniforms of an enemy power.
What Obama just gave himself is the power to target any American at any time anywhere who is deemed to be potentially involved in a future terror attack operation.
This... remember how in 2009, when the Tea Party came about, this administration determined libertarians, veterans and pro-lifers to be “potential extremists (read: Terrorists).”
Anyone who’s not alarmed by this isn’t paying attention.