Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

Citizen said:

Well, yes. But, those cases are not in question.*

*I'm thinking disaster relief, rebellion, Nat'l Guard preventing looting after a hurricane, etc.


None of those exceptions, except maybe anti-looters, applies to the current concerns. Is this just a case where you fell for the deliberately vague answer from Holder? He knew what was being asked. He gave the vague answer--probably to avoid stirring up criticism. Too bad for him if others can fit objectionable situations into his vagueness.

Click to expand...

Who was looting after that Katrina Hurricane?

eye95 said:

I don't get all this "citizen" crap. Whether or not someone gets droned is neither justified nor outlawed by their citizenship. Constitutional rights are protected for "People," not just for "citizens."

Citizens have some privileges that non-citizens do not (for example, voting), but rights to life, Liberty, due process, privacy, etc. belong to all People.

That being said, it also works both ways. If a non-citizen can be targeted by a drone lawfully, then so can a citizen if all other circumstances are the same.

If a citizen becomes an enemy combatant, then the military is justified in making them a military target. Law enforcement may have an interest in the person also, but if the military gets there first...

I don't trust anyone in the Obama administration to make these decisions correctly. But the American People (stupidly, IMO) vested them with these powers. God help us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

This. And this is also why I don't feel too horribly about Anwar-whatever getting droned. Just because he "was" an American citizen doesn't change the fact that he left the country, hid from attempts to apprehend him to stand trial for his alleged crimes (the LE side of the issue), and also aided the enemy (the military side of the issue). To me the bigger issue is that the whole "terrorist" concept and fighters not being a part of really anything that can be easily defined/targeted (like a foreign government) and how this relates to the Constitution and trying to target said individuals. I don't really have a good answer for how to fix this issue, but I can recognize this as a problem that needs to be solved. Pity that I don't trust the current government to come up with a reasonable answer that doesn't walk all over rights and due process.

Aknazer said:

This. And this is also why I don't feel too horribly about Anwar-whatever getting droned. Just because he "was" an American citizen doesn't change the fact that he left the country, hid from attempts to apprehend him to stand trial for his alleged crimes (the LE side of the issue), and also aided the enemy (the military side of the issue). To me the bigger issue is that the whole "terrorist" concept and fighters not being a part of really anything that can be easily defined/targeted (like a foreign government) and how this relates to the Constitution and trying to target said individuals. I don't really have a good answer for how to fix this issue, but I can recognize this as a problem that needs to be solved. Pity that I don't trust the current government to come up with a reasonable answer that doesn't walk all over rights and due process.

Click to expand...

The government is counting on that. Its not our job to come up with a good answer--its theirs.

And, I don't believe for one minute Awlaki was all that out of reach. Remember the guy who shot up the cars in the left-turn lane waiting to go to work at Langley back in the 90's? He fled to Pakistan. The FBI just went over there right across an ocean and several international borders and grabbed him, and brought him back. He's in a federal prison right this very instant.

I would like to point out that you're depending for info on Awlaki being a terrorist and so forth on the very government that killed extra-judicially both he and, in a separate attack, his 16 year old son. That's the whole reason for jury trials and the prohibition on bills of attainder (legislative declarations of outlawry that make it legal for anybody, not just government, to kill the subject of the bill).

Aiding the enemy is treason--it gets a trial, not a pre-judicial execution.

Make the government play by the rules, even for people you really don't like--the rules are there for our safety.

No. It is our job. We are in charge. It is up to us to make sure the the government does OUR collective bidding in a way that does not trample on the rights of others.

Oh, and while the act is treason, it is also an act of war, actionable by both LE and the military. It is a false choice to imply that only one has constitutional authority.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

eye95 said:

No. It is our job. We are in charge. It is up to us to make sure the the government does OUR collective bidding in a way that does not trample on the rights of others.

Oh, and while the act is treason, it is also an act of war, actionable by both LE and the military. It is a false choice to imply that only one has constitutional authority.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

Click to expand...

Eye, give it up. You're just arguing in circles for the sake of arguing. Of course its our job to make sure the government stays in bounds. I'm referring to government having access to experts who can figure out the tactical problems of bring such a fellow to justice, as opposed to soccer moms and brick masons who carry guns. I know you knew that was what I was talking about. Nobody is that dumb.

Regarding treason and war, if treason is an act of war, why did the Framers bother to criminalize it? Are you suggesting the Rosenbergs should have been droned instead of tried? Of course, not. So, what are you talking about? Which of Awliki's actions were actual, genuine, real acts of war, as opposed to mere treason?

Citizen said:

Eye, give it up. You're just arguing in circles for the sake of arguing.

Click to expand...

That was rude. I have lately come to expect better from you.

...Regarding treason and war, if treason is an act of war, why did the Framers bother to criminalize it?

Click to expand...

Because it is possible for something to be both a crime and an act of war.

Are you suggesting the Rosenbergs should have been droned instead of tried?

Click to expand...

I mentioned no specific cases. LE will seek out lawbreakers. The military will seek out military targets. It is possible to be both. It is possible to be both even while one of the two entities shows no interest.

...Which of Awliki's actions were actual, genuine, real acts of war, as opposed to mere treason?

Click to expand...

Again, I mention no particular instance. The point all along has been that it is POSSIBLE for the government to target enemy combatants on American soil, even though they may be citizens.

However, aiding the enemy is BOTH a crime and a participation in the war as part of the enemy, making that person BOTH a criminal and an enemy combatant.

Anyway, I will move on unless you choose to stop being rude.

Moot point now that Holder was "forced" by Rand Paul to admit the obvious, "droning" a US citizen on US soil is illegal under our constitution. But, I would caution any "enemy combatants" currently on US soil from taking a vacation to Cancun.....ever.

Citizen said:

The government is counting on that. Its not our job to come up with a good answer--its theirs.

Click to expand...

Yes, but SOMEONE has to come up with an answer to it. And "they" still come from "us" so we all need to work together to come up with a proper answer to the question. And I would rather try to work towards an answer rather than sitting there doing nothing about it.

And, I don't believe for one minute Awlaki was all that out of reach. Remember the guy who shot up the cars in the left-turn lane waiting to go to work at Langley back in the 90's? He fled to Pakistan. The FBI just went over there right across an ocean and several international borders and grabbed him, and brought him back. He's in a federal prison right this very instant.

Click to expand...

And if I remember right, Awlaki was in a remote area that wasn't exactly "cooperative" with authorities on the subject. Also I believe there were letters requesting his return to the US but were undeliverable because people magically didn't know where he was (and thus the letters couldn't be delivered). I'm also going to bet that the guy you're talking about wasn't in the same position that Awlaki was and thus didn't have the same resources for hiding available to him. So while yes, sometimes we can go get a person without bloodshed (which should always be the first course of action when reasonable), that isn't always possible.

I would like to point out that you're depending for info on Awlaki being a terrorist and so forth on the very government that killed extra-judicially both he and, in a separate attack, his 16 year old son. That's the whole reason for jury trials and the prohibition on bills of attainder (legislative declarations of outlawry that make it legal for anybody, not just government, to kill the subject of the bill).

Click to expand...

I do not know enough about the son or the strike in order to adequately comment on if I think he would have been a viable target. There is also the potential that he was a casualty of war if they were targeting someone else who was there. And I get the prohibition on bills of attainder, but this goes right back to my very first thing in that we need a proper definition of terrorist/freedom-fighter/<insert label here> as they aren't anywhere near as easy to define as an enemy combatant from another country commiting an act of war.

Aiding the enemy is treason--it gets a trial, not a pre-judicial execution.

Click to expand...

It can also make someone an enemy combatant and subject to potential military action. Otherwise you could take it to an extreme and say that NO ONE should be killed by the military because killing is a crime and so we need to capture all of the terrorists and try them in court for murder. Or another situation would be XXX was just a bomb-maker, he PERSONALLY didn't kill anyone, that guy who blew himself up killed those people... And even if he wasn't the person pulling the trigger (or blowing himself up), he was actively working in a leadership position to help recruit people who would do such actions.

Make the government play by the rules, even for people you really don't like--the rules are there for our safety.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but we need proper rules for dealing with this threat. The government has put into place rules that can lend theirselves to some pretty large issues, but the citizens aren't really submitting anything better. Otherwise we're going to be frozen by inaction and the enemy will still win.