Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

OC for ME said:

Not good news.

Click to expand...

Oh, its great news. This is us doing it to ourselves by way of our representative government. If any more American citizens are killed by drone strikes, then the deceased actually committed suicide because we are the government and the government is us. It all makes perfect sense. There is no reason to be concerned.

The United States Constitution was written to apply to the federal government.

Wherever the federal government goes the constitution follows.

Whatever the federal government does it has to do so within the confines of the constitution.

America is NOT at war with Al-Qaeda. The American government (president and congress) have NOT declared war on Al-Qaeda.

The American government, specifically the executive branch, can not deprive a person, especially an American citizen, of life or liberty without due process.

Killing an American citizen and his minor child who are both UNINDICTED is a blatant violation of the US constitution.

It is highly disturbing to me that the American congress is almost completely silent on this issue.

Also remember folks, it can be assumed that the America government has killed more than just the two people they aknowledge.

The government is under no legal obligation to inform the public about anyone they kill or capture if its for "national sercurity" reasons.

Agreed. 100%

People used the same logic in supporting the patriot act because it was for our "own safety" and the government promised they would only use it on people like Al-Qaeda and not the American people, yet what has the government been doing with it. Both of these certainly violate the constitution plain and simple. Not one single thing people can say changes this fact.

Because it may be abused does not make this ruling unconstitutional. It would only be unconstitutional if its use as stated violates the Constitution. Attacking those with whom we are at war, even on US soil, is not unconstitutional, so there is nothing wrong with the DOJ saying that military drones can be used to target al Qaeda leadership in America.

Now, if the military were to use this ruling to go after Americans whom they knew were NOT al Qaeda, then they would be running afoul of the Constitution and of this ruling! They would be subject to both military justice and, having committed a crime, civilian justice.

Because someone might abuse a law (or a ruling) in an unconstitutional way is a silly reason to be against the law (or ruling) that is not, on its face, unconstitutional.

Believing otherwise is the logical equivalent of being against guns because they might be used criminally.

Hey, don't drone me bro ...

Looks like they gave them themselves a reason to kill anyone ... do not accept those free, gov't giveaway, trips outside the US !

davidmcbeth said:

Looks like they gave them themselves a reason to kill anyone ... do not accept those free, gov't giveaway, trips outside the US !

Click to expand...

Who says it has to be outside the US?

It shouldn't matter inside or outside, if someone is making war on the US, that is a military matter, not a law enforcement matter. Al Qaeda is making war on the US. Al Qaeda leadership in the US is a valid military target. Drones are an appropriate weapon to target them.

eye95 said:

It shouldn't matter inside or outside, if someone is making war on the US, that is a military matter, not a law enforcement matter. Al Qaeda is making war on the US. Al Qaeda leadership in the US is a valid military target. Drones are an appropriate weapon to target them.

Click to expand...

The problem is that in order for these actions to be constitutional America has to declare war on Al-Qaeda.

America has NOT declared war on Al-Qaeda.

Bush didnt do it. Obama didnt do it. Congress hasnt done it.

eye95 said:

It shouldn't matter inside or outside, if someone is making war on the US, that is a military matter, not a law enforcement matter. Al Qaeda is making war on the US. Al Qaeda leadership in the US is a valid military target. Drones are an appropriate weapon to target them.

Click to expand...

Inside or outside might not matter, but it matters when it is an American citizen. I agree with Judge Napolitano on this...

"The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. The components of due process are too numerous to address here, but the essence of due process is “substantive fairness” and a “settled fair procedure.” Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, it must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone - American or foreign - it hated or feared."

The article from earlier in 2012.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/can-the-president-kill-you/

Ca Patriot said:

The problem is that in order for these actions to be constitutional America has to declare war on Al-Qaeda.

America has NOT declared war on Al-Qaeda.

Bush didnt do it. Obama didnt do it. Congress hasnt done it.

Click to expand...

Good point. The declaration of war is part of due process.

Glad to see you sanity has returned

eye95 said:

Then you have not followed my logic. I am not at war with the US. Al Qaeda is. If the president were to target me, or any other such target, then the correct process is impeachment by Congress, conviction, removal from office, and punishment.

My point, which seems to have eluded your logical abilities, is that there is a distinction between military and law enforcement matters. Striking against the enemy, wherever he is, is of no concern to the courts or to the Justice Department. It is a military decision. There are systems in place to handle the criminal misuse of that authority.

It is not criminal to militarily target enemy combatants, even on US soil. If they use drones to kill al Qaeda leaders, they are simply doing the job given them. Criminally targeting others is another matter, but still not one for the DOJ or for the courts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Actually terrorism is against federal law, so is treason.
so if the "enemy combatant" is a US citizen on US soil they should be arrested if possible and tried, that is a police action.

if they're assasinating US citizens on Us soil as enemy combatants with drone strikes that's a violation of due process, the federal government has plenty of resources to conduct a ground arrest of someone on US soil without the need to use military strikes with bombs and aircraft.

if they're overseas with enemy combat units, that's one thing, inside the country... due process should fully apply. furthermore what is "Al-Qaeda"? do they wear uniforms? hold military rank? do they engage in recognized military action and comply with international law? geneva and hague convention?

In fact the Members of Mexican drug cartels often meet the better criteria of a military force then Al Qeada. they wear uniforms, badges of rank, carry military weapons, have officers appointed. so should we be allowed to conduct drone strikes against any cartel enforcers due to the "war on drugs" and if we capture them are they "prisoners of war" subject to geneva?

what's the different between AQ operatives who say, plant a bomb in a building, versus say white supremacists who do the same thing?


absolutely nothing!

so an AQ operative, as an american citizen, inside the borders of the United States or a US Ally with an extradition treaty, should be treated as a law enforcement and not a military matter. you probably support imprisoning people without charges and torturing them until the tell you what you want to hear too... and BTW if the "war on terror" is a military matter then are all the detainees at Gitmo "POWs" so why are we violating the geneva convention by torturing them, why did we violate geneva with tribunals to determine guilt of terrorism when geneva only allows limited tribunals to determine a POWs status as to whther or not they're entitled to protections?

why did we violate geneva by not presuming detainees lawful until such tribunal?

so is this a military or a law enforcement action? it appears the FedGov wants to have the best of both worlds without providing any rights or protections.

I trust the government to do what is right. People want power and expensive contracts to keep me safe. We all have to sacrifice some privacy and liberty to be safe from the turists. If it saves one life or catches Goldstein, they can use drones in my city all day long. I just wish a Republican administration were spying on me. I don't think the current one is tough enough on turr.

Ca Patriot said:

The problem is that in order for these actions to be constitutional America has to declare war on Al-Qaeda.

America has NOT declared war on Al-Qaeda.

Bush didnt do it. Obama didnt do it. Congress hasnt done it.

Click to expand...

We are in an effective state of war with al Qaeda. I agree that all wars should be declared, but until SCOTUS rules on the current practice of use of congressionally approved authorizations for the use of force, that is how we go to war. We are at war with al Qaeda.'

I love the way some pick around the edges of an argument rather than dealing with the main idea of the argument. We are about to do two or three pages on whether we are at war with al Qaeda. I won't participate in that. To all rational people, we are at war with al Qaeda.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

77zach said:

I trust the government to do what is right. People want power and expensive contracts to keep me safe. We all have to sacrifice some privacy and liberty to be safe from the turists. If it saves one life or catches Goldstein, they can use drones in my city all day long. I just wish a Republican administration were spying on me. I don't think the current one is tough enough on turr.

Click to expand...

So you dont trust the government? I dont trust the government to run a pencil sharpener much less this. Giving up liberty for "safety" is a complete bull. I am not willing to trust unnamed "informed, high-level officials" with unchecked and unbalanced assassination decisions. Information is often wrong, and who knows how high "high" is. Who puts the hit list together and using what information? I am sorry I guess your perfectly ok with turning the US into a even bigger police state, I am willing to take freedom 100% of the time over the excuse of safety. Look at the reason why we were attacked, the US government is extremely arrogant in thinking we can go into any other country and try to install governments and then we are surprised that those we have put in power have turned against us. We have been doing this for decades and our chickens have come home to roost and the arrogance of the US government to claim "we dont know why the attacked us, they hate our way of life". If people would spend a few days reading up on CIA experts who explain in detail how our foreign policy in being the new roman empire has made us a target and not that our enemies hate us for our way of life. Look for this book and start to read up on the facts. http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/B007SRWNM6

That is what the CIA calls blowback. Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in support of the government which was introducing reforms which were opposed by the extremist muslims. The extremists formed a resistance force with assistance from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the CIA who supplied arms and money throughout the 1980s. Ronald Reagan personally authorized the delivery of 1,000 surface to air missiles for shooting down Russian airplanes.. Only about 500 of these were used and the rest are still out there somewhere. One of the Saudis involved was Osama bin Laden who formed a training camp at Peshawar called Al Qaeda and trained guerrillas with the help of the CIA. The Russians eventually pulled out and the extremist Muslims broke up into different factions fighting each other for supremacy. The USA abandoned all assistance to Afghanistan as soon as the Russians left, and it came back to bite us,

These are vague and subjective standards and there is no Congressional oversight or judicial review. Where American citizens are targeted, as they have been, their Constitutional rights are unilaterally suspended by the anonymous "high level official." That is not what Madison or Jefferson had in mind. Having drones available would not have altered their principles, as they seem to have done with those in power today. And, politically, Democrats have to be very careful on this issue to avoid adoption of a double standard. All hell would break loose if this were the W Bush administration. Expediency is never a justification for unconstitutional and immoral actions. This is so even where self-defense and national security are concerned. It has proved incredibly easy to assassinate someone (and his family) half a world away. And that is what makes this new style of warfare so attractive... and so dangerous. This bull crap excuse has been used every since bush was in office and it has not made us any safer.




"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

-Samuel Adams


Ron Paul said it best way think it can be,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1FaLdABFM

EMN.

Yes, arresting for terrorist actions or treason would be a law enforcement activity. Bombing them with a drone is a military action. BOTH are justified. The former would be handled by cops and courts--and will be messy and complicated. Bombing them will be done by the military, and will achieve the goal with a lot less mess (apart from the physical mess) and a lot less complication.

That something CAN be handled by law enforcement means does not preclude handling it by military means.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

We are in an effective state of war with al Qaeda. I agree that all wars should be declared, but until SCOTUS rules on the current practice of use of Congressional approved authorizations for the use of force, that is how we go to war. We are at war with al Qaeda.'

I love the way some pick around the edges of an argument rather than dealing with the main idea of the argument. We are about to do two or three pages on whether we are at war with al Qaeda. I won't participate in that. To all rational people, we are at war with al Qaeda.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

That is a sorry excuse saying we will have to wait and see what SCOTUS rules, it is in plain English what congress and the president is authorized to do period. For a person who always makes people cite what the THE LAW says and a person I respect for that is ok with the government bending constitutional requirements and peoples rights is sad. This is not how we go to war and the American people are to blame for allowing them to get away with it. The republicans and democratic voters stood by and allowed bush to bend our rights and allowed him and now obama to get away with two illegal wars that have killed thousand of our men and woman. Bush took a yard of rope and now Obama is taking the whole reel.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X-qAq_HAQ0 Breaks it down into even simpler.

I was just about to post an answer, and then I realized that I was being sucked into that which I said I would not be.

Go ahead and have your silly side-argument on the exact means by which we must decide to go to war. I don't care. I won't participate. It is a distraction from the real point I was making.

Folks love to spend pages arguing around the edges. I'll wait for discussions of substance worth the effort. I've made my point on this distraction and won't bother further.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

zack991 said:

I am sorry I guess your perfectly ok with turning the US into a even bigger police state, I am willing to take freedom 100% of the time over the excuse

Click to expand...

They hit us on nine leven and I don't want to get hit again. We can either get rid of that stupid liberal 4th amendment crap and bomb Iran now because if we don't there's gonna be a mushroom cloud in an American city. My president said they hate us cause we're free so all wr got to do is get rid of all these liberal ron paul people and get tough on alkida.

eye95 said:

EMN.

Yes, arresting for terrorist actions or treason would be a law enforcement activity. Bombing them with a drone is a military action. BOTH are justified. The former would be handled by cops and courts--and will be messy and complicated. Bombing them will be done by the military, and will achieve the goal with a lot less mess (apart from the physical mess) and a lot less complication.

That something CAN be handled by law enforcement means does not preclude handling it by military means.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

personally, I just think we should target rapists with predator drones, it will be much easier and cheaper then a trial. have the federal government hear the vitcims side of the story in private, judge if she's accurate, then light his ass up with a hellfire missile. according to you law enforcement and military actions are both justified in dealing with a domestic criminal problem. sounds great to me, what do you think?

or drunk drivers, that kills more people then the A-rabs ever have, lets just have predator drones waste swerving cars from 10,000 feet with a missile strike. think of all the lives that will be saved.

EMNofSeattle said:

or drunk drivers, that kills more people then the A-rabs ever have, lets just have predator drones waste swerving cars from 10,000 feet with a missile strike. Think of all the lives that will be saved.

Click to expand...

If it saves a life, why not?

I want breathalyzers mandatory in cars. You have to blow in it before you start it. If you're not drunk, you don't have to worry. What's a two second breath when it could save a life?