Drone strikes on Americans

[walksalone]

This is true, but the game over there is constantly changing, and I don't envy the intel guys who are trying to stay one step ahead of it.

 

 

but there are still age-old things that apply.

 

Yeah, like "friendly fire, isn't" and "if it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid"

[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?

[walksalone]

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?

 

The sh*tty part about all this is we're at war with an enemy that has no discernible uniform, doesn't use normal tactics, and doesn't follow any sort of rules. This puts our soldiers in a predicament that is almost untenable.

 

That increases the margin of error leading to things such as this...

[ZRod]

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?

 

The sh*tty part about all this is we're at war with an enemy that has no discernible uniform, doesn't use normal tactics, and doesn't follow any sort of rules. This puts our soldiers in a predicament that is almost untenable.

 

That increases the margin of error leading to things such as this...

I wouldn't call this increasing the margin of error. I agree that the government should have the authority to kill these people, but I don't agree with the way they are going about it. You can't just redefine words like imminent and then go on to say well we don't even really have to have any information that he is planning anything.

[walksalone]

I wouldn't call this increasing the margin of error. I agree that the government should have the authority to kill these people, but I don't agree with the way they are going about it. You can't just redefine words like imminent and then go on to say well we don't even really have to have any information that he is planning anything.

 

See, this is a hell of a double edged sword. You have this drone issue, or even worse, you could have a "Blackhawk Down" type of incident.

 

I guess the amount of outcry differs, depending on the method you use to accomplish the mission...

[The Dude]

"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. The "war on terror" isn't a war. It's a policing action. For the love of god, let's not legitimize "terrorists". The "terrorism" boogeyman can go f#*k itself.

 

If you're a citizen, you're entitled to all rights under the law. You have to be convicted of treason to forfeit your citizenship rights. The "it's too hard to get them" excuse isn't enough. As American citizens they deserve a trial by jury for the crime of treason, not to be indiscriminately shot by a flying robot because the President and some lawyers have decided they guess they've saw enough proof.

 

I find it absolutely disgusting people are defending this. It affects us directly. Rights, by definition, are binary. Either everyone has them, or no one does.

[Conga3]

"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. The "war on terror" isn't a war. It's a policing action. For the love of god, let's not legitimize "terrorists". The "terrorism" boogeyman can go f#*k itself.

 

If you're a citizen, you're entitled to all rights under the law. You have to be convicted of treason to forfeit your citizenship rights. The "it's too hard to get them" excuse isn't enough. As American citizens they deserve a trial by jury for the crime of treason, not to be indiscriminately shot by a flying robot because the President and some lawyers have decided they guess they've saw enough proof.

 

I find it absolutely disgusting people are defending this. It affects us directly. Rights, by definition, are binary. Either everyone has them, or no one does.

 

I'm fine with not having the right to a jury trial and legal representation if I leave the country and take up arms against US soldiers...

 

...but I'm an extremist who thinks we are at war and radical Islam is a real threat to all peace loving people.

[The Dude]

"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. The "war on terror" isn't a war. It's a policing action. For the love of god, let's not legitimize "terrorists". The "terrorism" boogeyman can go f#*k itself.

 

If you're a citizen, you're entitled to all rights under the law. You have to be convicted of treason to forfeit your citizenship rights. The "it's too hard to get them" excuse isn't enough. As American citizens they deserve a trial by jury for the crime of treason, not to be indiscriminately shot by a flying robot because the President and some lawyers have decided they guess they've saw enough proof.

 

I find it absolutely disgusting people are defending this. It affects us directly. Rights, by definition, are binary. Either everyone has them, or no one does.

 

I'm fine with not having the right to a jury trial and legal representation if I leave the country and take up arms against US soldiers...

 

...but I'm an extremist who thinks we are at war and radical Islam is a real threat to all peace loving people.

 

You're apparently also an extremist who thinks the government has the power to unilaterally sentence citizens to death without so much as a trial.

 

By all accounts, al-Aulaqi was a bad dude, who should have been tried for treason, along with other crimes. But assassinated by the government? What kind of backwards justice system do you believe in?

[Undone]

"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.

[Conga3]

You're apparently also an extremist who thinks the government has the power to unilaterally sentence citizens to death without so much as a trial.

 

By all accounts, al-Aulaqi was a bad dude, who should have been tried for treason, along with other crimes. But assassinated by the government? What kind of backwards justice system do you believe in?

OK.. this is just an endless circle.(see above) I don't believe you are a US Citizen when you're in another country fighting against the US.

 

Citizenship is not permanent. One can take steps to renounce their citizenship. You can do that by leaving the country and filing the right paperwork with a US diplomat and saying the reverse "Pledge of Allegiance"(kinda). There is paperwork, and a couple months waiting period and the State department has to accept your renouncement.

 

Obviously, these bad guys would have done it officially if they had the time. I'm fine with the US Military and the President assuming they just never got around to officially renouncing their citizenship - but meant to...and drone bombing their asses.

 

It'd be nice if al-Qaeda and the Taliban wouldn't let Americans into their little club until they officially renounce their US citizenship at a US embassy...but they seem to not give a flip about that sort of stuff.

 

---

 

next your'll say.... 'They are US Citizens!'....and the loop repeats.

 

I'm done.

[Undone]

Actually Conga, I really do think you're skipping a step.

 

Forget the concept of the "suspect" being overseas for a moment, that seems to be clouding this. Let's say you see the FBI roll up to your neighbor's house with a SWAT team. They breach the door with a battering ram, and drag your neighbor bro outside. You ask one of the agents what's going on? He replies, "He's suspected of terrorist activity, so we're going to shoot him on his lawn right now."

 

That's what we're operating with. No analogy is perfect, but that's essentially what's being done. Nobody's saying these guys don't possibly deserve capital punishment. We're saying they deserve a trial. The only way as I see it to disagree with that is to renounce our constitution, or to admit that you're picking and choosing when constitutional rights apply and when they don't.

 

That is absolutely a slippery slope.

[The Dude]

You're apparently also an extremist who thinks the government has the power to unilaterally sentence citizens to death without so much as a trial.

 

By all accounts, al-Aulaqi was a bad dude, who should have been tried for treason, along with other crimes. But assassinated by the government? What kind of backwards justice system do you believe in?

OK.. this is just an endless circle.(see above) I don't believe you are a US Citizen when you're in another country fighting against the US.

 

Citizenship is not permanent. One can take steps to renounce their citizenship. You can do that by leaving the country and filing the right paperwork with a US diplomat and saying the reverse "Pledge of Allegiance"(kinda). There is paperwork, and a couple months waiting period and the State department has to accept your renouncement.

 

Obviously, these bad guys would have done it officially if they had the time. I'm fine with the US Military and the President assuming they just never got around to officially renouncing their citizenship - but meant to...and drone bombing their asses.

 

It'd be nice if al-Qaeda and the Taliban wouldn't let Americans into their little club until they officially renounce their US citizenship at a US embassy...but they seem to not give a flip about that sort of stuff.

 

---

 

next your'll say.... 'They are US Citizens!'....and the loop repeats.

 

I'm done.

Of course I'm going to say they're US citizens, because they are (where), and you know it. I'm sorry it's inconvenient to you're argument, but thems the facts. One can be tried and convicted of treason, then they forfeit their rights as citizens. But we're talking about citizens who weren't tried, let alone convicted.

 

So there is no endless loop.

[carlfense]

It's convenient though . . . the government just declares that you're not a citizen and then they can do whatever they want.

 

Goodbye Constitutional rights.

[Conga3]

Actually Conga, I really do think you're skipping a step.

 

Forget the concept of the "suspect" being overseas for a moment, that seems to be clouding this. Let's say you see the FBI roll up to your neighbor's house with a SWAT team. They breach the door with a battering ram, and drag your neighbor bro outside. You ask one of the agents what's going on? He replies, "He's suspected of terrorist activity, so we're going to shoot him on his lawn right now."

 

That's what we're operating with. No analogy is perfect, but that's essentially what's being done. Nobody's saying these guys don't possibly deserve capital punishment. We're saying they deserve a trial. The only way as I see it to disagree with that is to renounce our constitution, or to admit that you're picking and choosing when constitutional rights apply and when they don't.

 

That is absolutely a slippery slope.

 

The legal memo we are debating in this thread is regarding overseas activities only.

 

This has NOTHING to do with activities within the United States.

 

If you wish to assume that this sort of memo will lead to domestic drone bombings... I can't help you and I don't wish to debate this with you. There isn't enough room for both of us under your tin foil hat.

 

READ THE MEMO

 

Not the poorly written article linked in the OP.

 

It's basically saying if Osama bin Laden was a US Citizen, we can shoot/bomb him legally (outside the US)

[Undone]

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.