Drone strikes on Americans

[carlfense]

READ THE MEMO

 

Not the poorly written article linked in the OP.

. . . that poorly written article contained a link to the memo.

[carlfense]

BTW my favorite line is "An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of his life is 'uniquely compelling.'" (emphasis added)

 

But I trust our government . . . I don't trust them when it comes to health care or taxation . . . but killing citizens? Sure.

[Conga3]

I don't care what the memo says. That memo isn't an amendment to the constitution of the United States. The 5th amendment is an amendment to the constitution. It rules the day in this question. It is not thrown aside to wont or convenience. It restricts the federal government from doing the very thing they're doing in this situation.

 

It does not matter where any alleged activity takes place, domestic or abroad. Citizens of the United States are afforded those rights regardless of current location.

 

We're not discussing capital punishment at this point. We're not even really discussing the finer points of warfare, engagement, or any of that. We're discussing constitutional rights.

 

Please do not accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat. I'm now trying to keep the argument focused on constitutional rights, not the threat of me being drone stricken as I walk out the door tonight.

My apologies about the tin foil remark. But the memo is important to this discussion. Some people see "US Citizen" and "Drone Bomb" and "Justice Department" and conclude the constitution is certainly being subverted... but it's not - and that's the argument put forth in the memo.

 

On the contrary, the JD is outlining why it is constitutional to drone bomb US citizens - when certain conditions are met. They do this crap all the time, it's their job. It's not necessarily anything new. But lawyers do what lawyers do...

 

Anyway, if you don't read the memo, the basic argument is the President has the responsibly to keep Americans safe and that trumps an US citizen's rights to their life --DON'T STOP THERE! because the memo explicitly says this is only applicable -- when the US Citizen is on foreign soil, and a senior leader of al-Qaeda.

[knapplc]

The slippery slope argument is what concerns me most here. I think I lie somewhere in between Conga's and Undone's opinion here - to an extent I feel like, you're over there, you know the risks, you get targeted by a drone... oh well.

 

But my concern is, if it's OK to do it "over there," what's to stop them from using drones against citizens "over here?" It's a matter of geography. This memo states "over there," but that's for now, under this president (and that's a fluid situation, too). But the next president or the next president, or the next - what's to stop them from using this precedent and taking it one step further?

 

I don't like the "slippery slope" argument and I'm sure nobody else does, either. But it's got to be considered.

[carlfense]

Anyway, if you don't read the memo, the basic argument is the President has the responsibly to keep Americans safe and that trumps an US citizen's rights to their life --DON'T STOP THERE! because the memo explicitly says this is only applicable -- when the US Citizen is on foreign soil, and a senior leader of al-Qaeda.

But what's the standard of proof? Essentially the opinion of a "high-level official." You're a senior leader of al-Qaeda if they say you are.

 

Where is the oversight? Where are the limits?

[Conga3]

The slippery slope argument is what concerns me most here. I think I lie somewhere in between Conga's and Undone's opinion here - to an extent I feel like, you're over there, you know the risks, you get targeted by a drone... oh well.

 

But my concern is, if it's OK to do it "over there," what's to stop them from using drones against citizens "over here?" It's a matter of geography. This memo states "over there," but that's for now, under this president (and that's a fluid situation, too). But the next president or the next president, or the next - what's to stop them from using this precedent and taking it one step further?

 

I don't like the "slippery slope" argument and I'm sure nobody else does, either. But it's got to be considered.

 

I suppose the more realistic "slippery slope" would be to use drones against the US Citizens in the Mexican Cartel within the United States.

 

Al-Qaeda leaders are probably going to stay away from the US to establish their power structures, while the Cartel is already here.

[Undone]

My apologies about the tin foil remark.

No worries.

 

But what's the standard of proof? Essentially the opinion of a "high-level official." You're a senior leader of al-Qaeda if they say you are.

Exactly. It's the epitome of 'extrajudicial.'

But we've probably come full circle on this one. I see Conga's argument, even though I think it's completely wrong. At the risk of creating a straw man, he essentially believes this memo-writing process is good enough for him, regardless of constitutional precedence and adherence.

[knapplc]

The slippery slope argument is what concerns me most here. I think I lie somewhere in between Conga's and Undone's opinion here - to an extent I feel like, you're over there, you know the risks, you get targeted by a drone... oh well.

 

But my concern is, if it's OK to do it "over there," what's to stop them from using drones against citizens "over here?" It's a matter of geography. This memo states "over there," but that's for now, under this president (and that's a fluid situation, too). But the next president or the next president, or the next - what's to stop them from using this precedent and taking it one step further?

 

I don't like the "slippery slope" argument and I'm sure nobody else does, either. But it's got to be considered.

 

I suppose the more realistic "slippery slope" would be to use drones against the US Citizens in the Mexican Cartel within the United States.

 

Al-Qaeda leaders are probably going to stay away from the US to establish their power structures, while the Cartel is already here.

 

I'm not being specific about any organization or affiliation. Limiting the conversation to al Qaeda or drug cartels doesn't begin to cover what I'd be worried about. You commit a crime - any crime - and a "next step, next step" interpretation of the abilities the government is granting itself with this memo says you can be targeted by a drone.

 

Take, for example, those helicopter chase scenes they love to show on local LA television. The guy in the car is fleeing arrest. He's a criminal, and therefore a potential threat. Bring in the drone and the hellfire missile, and problem solved. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at.

[The Dude]

delete

[Conga3]

The slippery slope argument is what concerns me most here. I think I lie somewhere in between Conga's and Undone's opinion here - to an extent I feel like, you're over there, you know the risks, you get targeted by a drone... oh well.

 

But my concern is, if it's OK to do it "over there," what's to stop them from using drones against citizens "over here?" It's a matter of geography. This memo states "over there," but that's for now, under this president (and that's a fluid situation, too). But the next president or the next president, or the next - what's to stop them from using this precedent and taking it one step further?

 

I don't like the "slippery slope" argument and I'm sure nobody else does, either. But it's got to be considered.

 

I suppose the more realistic "slippery slope" would be to use drones against the US Citizens in the Mexican Cartel within the United States.

 

Al-Qaeda leaders are probably going to stay away from the US to establish their power structures, while the Cartel is already here.

 

I'm not being specific about any organization or affiliation. Limiting the conversation to al Qaeda or drug cartels doesn't begin to cover what I'd be worried about. You commit a crime - any crime - and a "next step, next step" interpretation of the abilities the government is granting itself with this memo says you can be targeted by a drone.

 

Take, for example, those helicopter chase scenes they love to show on local LA television. The guy in the car is fleeing arrest. He's a criminal, and therefore a potential threat. Bring in the drone and the hellfire missile, and problem solved. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at.

I would watch that.

 

--------------

 

But seriously, the drone missiles are a tool of war...and your concern is them being used for domestic law enforcement?

 

There probably already exists several "memos" explaining how domestic law enforcement within the US can't use drone missiles or our super secret space lasers.

 

The memos go both ways. There are lots of them.

[Undone]

There probably already exists several "memos" explaining how domestic law enforcement within the US can't use drone missiles or our super secret space lasers.

Conga, this comment by you proves one of two things, or both:

 

1. You don't understand the concept of the importance of our constitution in these matters

 

2. You're actively choosing to ignore it

 

It doesn't matter whether or not any memos exist explaining how domestic law enforcement within the U.S. can't use drone missiles to kill a suspect on sight without a trial...because of the mere existence and utter power of the 5th and 6th amendments!!

 

Please, please tell me you understand this.

[ZRod]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Doesn't that little line right there basically give him the authority? Isn't it a time of war when you have US soldiers fighting against an enemy these people are apart of? Or isn't it a public danger to have these people who denounce the US and promise to do harm to it's citizens carry on?

No. These are citizens we're talking about; they aren't U.S. servicemen gone AWOL. That clause in the 5th is excluding cases arising of members of the military.

Well does explicitly state which militia or who's military they are in? Can't AQ be considered a militia of sorts?

[Junior]

I guess it is a matter of semantics, but to me, if we are targeting a known enemy and happen to kill American citizens associating with that enemy, so be it. They shouldn't have been there, and we can't exactly go and arrest them for trial. But if we are specifically hitting a target because there is an American citizen there, then I believe this to be on the wrong side of the line.

[Conga3]

There probably already exists several "memos" explaining how domestic law enforcement within the US can't use drone missiles or our super secret space lasers.

Conga, this comment by you proves one of two things, or both:

 

1. You don't understand the concept of the importance of our constitution in these matters

 

2. You're actively choosing to ignore it

 

It doesn't matter whether or not any memos exist explaining how domestic law enforcement within the U.S. can't use drone missiles to kill a suspect on sight without a trial...because of the mere existence and utter power of the 5th and 6th amendments!!

 

Please, please tell me you understand this.

 

The Constitution is VERY important. But it doesn't specify in our Constitution whether or not we can drone bomb al-Qaeda leaders if they also happen to be US Citizens and on foreign soil. So the job of the Justice Department is to interpret the Constitution, law, and precedence and put out a 'memo'.

 

A 'memo' coming to the conclusion it's legal -- doesn't make it legal. It's not an Amendment to the Constitution or a Law.

 

It's simply an opinion by a legal type lawyer person who reviews the case in terms of the Constitution, existing law, and legal precedence.

 

The President, and by extension the federal agencies, use the 'memos' put out by the Justice Department to develop policy and make decisions within the framework of the Law.

 

The resulting policy and decisions are still able to be challenged legally if you have standing.

 

If a 'memo' says you can drone bomb Citizen_A, and the family decides to sue the US Government for the death of Citizen_A, it will get mashed out in our legal system...possibly going before the Supreme Court - and possibly being determined to be wrong.

 

Interpretation of Law is incredibly important - but it's also incredibly complicated and sometimes a bit murky. The JD is tasked at researching these cases (US Citizen + foreign soil + al-Qaeda leader) and coming up with an opinion on how the case might be interpreted by the Supreme Court. This way we can know within weeks or months if we can "do something" legally...instead of waiting for a law to be written (and possible challenged at the Supreme court ) specifically allowing us to "do something".

 

The Justice Department (Executive Branch) and the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) are not the same entity, but they are usually very close on most issues since they are drawing from the same pool of legalese.

 

If we need to do something, but the JD's opinion is we can't -- then we go to the Congress (Legislative Branch) to make the laws we needs to be able to "do something" (see Patriot ACT)...even then it could still be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court to ultimately decide its legality.

---

 

I think I get it.

 

The memos put out by the JD are considering those Amendments you list.

 

Whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with the JD memos, and cites those Amendments as the basis for striking down those memos....well that's a possibility, but it's not likely.

[Undone]

Well does explicitly state which militia or who's military they are in?

No, it's both implicit and obvious.

 

Can't AQ be considered a militia of sorts?

No.