Justice Department's legal case for drone strikes on Americans

The same problem still exists, even as you try to "de-vague" the terms. It's a nebulous accusation with no burden of proof that results in someone's death. It's wrong.

I've made it clear in here a few times that I'm pro-death penalty. And that's perfectly consistent. Put them on trial and then blast away with the drones (if you prefer that to drugs). I find it odd that someone like you (anti-death penalty as I recall) finds this type of activity so easily justifiable. If anything, it's far and away more ripe for the abuses and issues often bandied about in regards to the death penalty. Yet here we are.

The war on terror, like the war on drugs, has been hijacked.

 

Yes, I'm anti-death penalty.

To be honest I only find acceptable if we buy into the idea that war is acceptable. I actually believe there is no need for an army or military. So to me war is not the best option for anything. But that's another topic.

If I'm going to accept that war is acceptable, then I'll accept that someone who is part of the enemy is open to being killed, and a trial won't change that. If someone from any nation even the U.S. is part of a terrorist group that is engaged in combat with the U.S. and has declared war on the U.S. they don't need a trial if they get killed by the U.S.

I do agree with you that the war on terror has been hi-jacked, that we have lost freedoms which we should not have, and that the govt. rationale behind the strikes is dangerous and unacceptable.

I just don't think the case of the citizen who was killed in Yemen is in anyway a problem if one accepts war.

 

I understand your POV. It's complicated.

 

I will point out that it's odd to see the consistency and inconsistency of different people.

Some right wingers especially one on this board have been extremely in favor of killing and being as tough as possible on terrorists even if it means breaking the geneva conventions, committing war crimes, and going against the constitution when it comes to water boarding, torture, gitmo, trials for terrorist suspects etc.

Now they go around whining and crying about a known terrorist who was killed by the U.S. and seem to wish that hadn't happened.

It paints very clearly that all along their only concern was about politics and using this all as a weapon to defend their Republican allies, and bash their Democrat enemies. The more some of these talk about it the more evident this becomes. Especially when, within the past year they've abandoned reason and joined the masses of birthers and global warming deniers.

What a hilarious track record.

 

As I always ask. Where was all of this great concern for civil liberties, or for the deficit for that matter, when the President had an 'R' by their name?

Anyway I was very glad to see Rand Paul's filibuster. It was good to see him take a stand on this issue to get more clarification from the Admin. and also great to see an actual filibuster not one of these procedural ones.

 

yes, it was a great move by Rand Paul. I'm glad he brought some real attention to the matter.

Of course he was trying to also bring a lot of attention to himself, and it worked for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he did a good thing.

 

The 2nd Amendment was written in case a president ever tries to kill its citizens without trial or due process.. well?

 

Great posts! Let's not, however, ignore the sharp decline in decibel level from the left when the President has a D by his name.

A classic example of how the D/R division serves the masters and hurts the subjects.

 

I agree that the D/R division hurts everyone but the masters. But I have seen plenty of liberals opposed to the justification of drone strikes on America.

 

True there probably hasn't been as much protest on the left versus drone strikes and other civil liberties violations since there has been a Democratic president but there has been very little support of those. Criticism is muted but I rarely here arguments from the Left saying that drone strikes and decreasing civil liberties are a good thing. I would also say that the most consistent critics of these policies have been from the Left and Paul supporters.

I have much more respect for those than I do for the people who were blasting people for "hating America" when these issues were brought up during the last Admin. and now are quoting people like Greenwald and Chomsky to blast the current Admin..

 

the Harvard Crimson:

--
We Stand with Rand
The Senator was right to stand up for accountability and transparency
By THE CRIMSON STAFF
10 hours ago
16 COMMENTS EMAIL PRINT
SHARE ON TWITTER MORE SHARING SERVICES
Late last week, as a rare March blizzard began to take our nation’s capital by storm, an ophthalmologist from Kentucky directed all eyes to C-Span, where he was busy making history. The ophthalmologist, Senator Rand Paul, managed to remain standing for nearly 13 hours in protest over President Obama’s choice to head the CIA in his second administration. While Paul admitted the inevitable futility of the filibuster, he remained firm in his positing of a single, previously unanswered question: “Does the President have the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” We commend the senator for raising the alarm on this important aspect of civil liberty, and we fault the administration for its intransigence in clarifying its own policies.

While John O. Brennan faced little trouble in his confirmation as Director of the CIA the day after Paul’s showmanship, Senator Paul did ultimately score a victory for his cause. Throughout his marathon of a speech, Paul read passages from previous letters sent to him by the attorney general addressing his primary query. The cavalier and wholly unsatisfying answer was, namely, that the question is laughable in and of itself—the president has never had to ponder targeting an American on U.S. soil. Laudably, Paul was unhappy with this response and stood his ground until he could get an unambiguous “yes” or “no” from the Justice Department. While he ultimately capitulated before such a memorandum arrived, the next day Attorney General Eric Holder backtracked from his previous position that American citizens at home could be targeted in “extraordinary circumstances.” His new, clarified stance is that “the answer to [Senator Paul’s] question is no.”

This is a victory not only for the senator from Kentucky’s political ambitions, but also for the good of the American people at large. The Obama administration has been dangerously continuing the unsalutary covertness of the Bush era national security team, which initiated the drone program a decade ago. Last year’s revelation that the president makes the final and unchecked decision on targeting members of his secret “kill list” calls into question how seriously our nation’s leaders take the Fifth Amendment. While the Bush years yielded many vociferous activists opposed to warrant-less wiretapping and other iniquities, the Obama administration has yet to face the same critics (largely because they make up a component of his political base). We take pride in Senator Paul’s championing of the causes of civil liberties and government accountability, and we call on more of our nation’s leaders to join him on this issue. As Democratic Senator Ron Wyden proved during the epic filibuster, seeking clarity on life-or-death policy should not manifest into a partisan issue.

Patrick Henry once said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Before Senator Paul’s bit of political theatre, it was not just the transactions of our rulers but also the possible scope of such transactions that had been blatantly concealed. Such is not the mark of good governance. While we are glad that Paul’s question has finally been granted a serious reply, we urge the administration to remember this moment in future situations. Likewise, we call on all of our nation’s leaders to be as brave as Senator Paul. When the government shrouds the nature of its business, it is up to political figures to call for transparency and openness