Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Saxxon said:

The thing is, I don't have a problem with this when going after a citizen who is hiding outside the US, making war on us and attacking our citizens/troops. At that point they have de facto renounced their citizenship and beome an enemy combatant. There is no bona-fide rebellion of secession currently in progress for them to belong to (much as the totality of Obama's policies seem to eb geared toward starting one).

Now if they turn these drones onto targets on US soil, where they obiously have access with police and courts - that is the same as using troops against our own citizens. That will be the sign of a rogue, tyrannical regime and would justify a bona-fide rebellion.

Obama's walking a very sharp razor there.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

I have no problem killing a combatant on the field of battle, I have big problems with targeting a US Citizen for his speech, without even the hint of due process. So here you are on a pro-gun site possibly using speech the God in Chief may find offensive. Does it matter you are a US citizen? NOPE! Would it matter that your son had nothing to do with your speech, and is targeted?

Since when did we find it acceptable to kill people solely for their speech? Are we then any different than the terrorists that we use for a excuse for this behavior?

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

I have no problem killing a combatant on the field of battle, I have big problems with targeting a US Citizen for his speech, without even the hint of due process. So here you are on a pro-gun site possibly using speech the God in Chief may find offensive. Does it matter you are a US citizen? NOPE! Would it matter that your son had nothing to do with your speech, and is targeted?

Since when did we find it acceptable to kill people solely for their speech? Are we then any different than the terrorists that we use for a excuse for this behavior?

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Now that was mature and added something significant to the discussion. I used to expect that from you, but thought you grown out of that behavior. I guess not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

intel.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

This is not a law enforcement issue. This is a national defense issue. (Some folks just don't get the distinction.)

Last I checked, we are at war with al Qaeda (among others).

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Click to expand...

shastadude17 said:

First let me begin by saying, everything after this quoted portion I completely agreed with and you hit the nail on the head...however, this is not a national defense issue, this is a law enforcement issue. Al Qaeda is not a uniformed service branch of a foreign government. You don't get a Geneva Convention ID Card for being in it. I fail to see how a mass murder (DING DING DING, Law Enforcement Issue) committed 12 years ago is a national defense issue, because all we've been doing since then is getting more Americans, NATO service members, and innocent foreign civilians killed chasing the boogie man. They are no "threat to our freedom". As an OIF veteran, it kills me when people thank me for "protecting their freedom overseas". This whole war on terror is a big gimmick to distract us from the real terrorists in Washington who are a legitimate threat to our freedom, as we've seen with the Patriot Act, the NDAA 2012 and 2013, and this latest effort to shred the 2A. It's time to wake up.

Click to expand...

mpguy said:

Would you mind posting what your rep said, and of when permission, would you let me send it to my rep/newspaper, just to see the reaction?

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Crazydude6030,

Thank you for contacting me with regard to the Department of Homeland Security's use of drones on domestic U.S. soil. I appreciate your interest in this issue, and your views are important to me.

Let me begin with the civil liberty issue — I am very cognizant of the need to balance national security and individual privacy. For example, I voted against the most recent extension of the Patriot Act (S. 990) because it would have extended three controversial provisions for four more years, which is too long of a time frame without additional oversight. In the past, and at the President's request, I supported a brief, 90-day temporary extension of these Patriot Act provisions (H.R. 514) to give ample time to revise the Patriot Act without jeopardizing ongoing national security investigations. Striking the right balance between national security and the preservation of civil liberties for all Americans continues to be an ongoing challenge.

The FAA Modernization Act of 2012 (PL 112-95), which I voted against for several reasons, defines an "unmanned aircraft" as "an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft." This is quite a broad definition and does not just encompass the traditional drones that we think of when one mentions overseas operations in war zones. As John Villasenor from The Brookings Institution said in a March 2012 National Public Radio interview:

There are drones that are powered by jet. There are drones that could literally fit in a backpack or the palm of a hand. There are drones that are basically like balloons that sit up there in the sky in one place and can observe enormous swaths of territory.

With regard to unmanned aircraft, the statute partially frames the issue as one of air traffic safety. For example, the law requires the FAA Administrator to develop plans to accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace System and report to Congress on progress made in establishing special use airspace for the Department of Defense to develop detection techniques for small unmanned aerial vehicles and to validate sensor integration and operation of unmanned aerial systems.

Lastly, a provision in the law states:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall approve and make available in print and on the Administration's Internet Web site a 5-year roadmap for the introduction of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system, as coordinated by the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office of the Administration. The Secretary shall update the roadmap annually .

As you can see, the legislation does require public reporting on the domestic use of unmanned aircraft, but additional transparency and oversight may be necessary. As your Representative, I will continue to monitor this situation closely and will carefully weigh the concerns of civil liberties while considering this and other national security issues.

Once again, thank you for expressing your concern on this very important issue. I appreciate hearing from you. For more information on my views on other issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://connolly.house.gov . I also encourage you to visit the website to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly
Member of Congress
11th District, Virginia

Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Crazydude6030,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your views on U.S. unmanned aircraft policy. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have been deeply engaged on this issue and worked hard to ensure robust oversight of the intelligence and counterterrorism activities that are undertaken to provide for the safety and security of the American people while ensuring we are attentive to civil liberties. I do not believe the President has the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.

Although the U.S. has used remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists overseas, these are conducted because they have been deemed necessary to mitigate current operational threats, prevent future attacks, and save American lives. The U.S. government takes great care when conducting an operation to ensure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life. That said, we can do more, and as a member of the Intelligence Committee I have devoted significant effort to provide rigorous oversight of our policy on the targeted killings of terrorists by unmanned aircraft.

The Committee receives notifications with key operational details of each strike shortly after it occurs, and holds regular briefings and hearings on these operations—reviewing the strikes, examining their effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool, verifying the care taken to avoid deaths to non-combatants and ensuring that a prudent, deliberate process is followed.

In addition, the Committee's staff has held 35 in-depth oversight meetings with government officials to review strike records (including video footage) and verify every aspect of the program. I believe that our intelligence and counterterrorism programs must often remain classified to be effective, but also that we need a strong system of oversight of these sensitive programs, given our democratic system of government and its checks and balances.

I believe it is imperative that our efforts to secure the nation do not come at the expense of our civil liberties or our laws and ideals. I will work to ensure that in reviewing our unmanned aircraft policy, we measure the programs' effectiveness objectively and independently, and not merely leave the review to those who are charged with implementing the program.

Ultimately, I believe our counterterrorism policies should comport with the rule of law, the Geneva Conventions, and who we are as Americans. I also believe any policy we authorize must ensure the safety and security of our military, diplomatic, and other personnel stationed overseas. That is why it is so important that this issue not be the subject of partisan rhetoric, but of a careful and systematic review by the Senate committees charged with oversight of the intelligence community. I look forward to continuing this vital undertaking.

Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov .

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

We are also supposedly at war with Drugs, poverty, etc......don't let the government rationalize their illegal actions.

Click to expand...

marine77 said:

I may be wrong, and very well could be, but all these "wars" according to the Constitution should have been ok'ed by the Congress critters, shouldn't they?

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

The Constitution does not state the precise form of a declaration of war. It only vests that authority with Congress. Of late, Congress has exercised that authority with "authorizations for the use of force." While, IMO, it is preferable that they use the words "declare war" on a clearly defined enemy (not necessarily a nation), it is not unconstitutional for them to exercise that constitutional authority simply because they chose different wording with essentially the same meaning.

We should strive for clarity in declarations of war, and vote for leadership that will seek that clarity. But that does not make wars authorized by Congress unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

When there is an authorization to use force from Congress, it is still they who are "declaring war," not the president.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...