American Thinker
by Rick Moran
February 7, 2013

Congressional intelligence committee members are going to find out today how the Justice Department has rationalized the killing of Americans by drone strike without due process. The Obama administration has authorized the release of a classified report that goes into detail about how DoJ arrived at their controversial conclusions on not only drone strikes, but rendition and certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

(excerpted)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013...ue_process.html

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #1

---

American Thinker
by Rick Moran
February 7, 2013

Congressional intelligence committee members are going to find out today how the Justice Department has rationalized the killing of Americans by drone strike without due process. The Obama administration has authorized the release of a classified report that goes into detail about how DoJ arrived at their controversial conclusions on not only drone strikes, but rendition and certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

(excerpted)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013...ue_process.html

---

See, that's the thing. I rarely disagree with Mark Levin on almost anything, but I heard him talking about a similar vein last evening: killing someone (American or not) on a "battlefield," "what's the difference if we use a drone or drop a bomb from an airplane," etc. Things along those lines. BUT, I am not aware of any "battlefield" in Yemen (nor Pakistan). Since our Congress has not declared war on either of these countries, we have no valid reason for violating their sovereignty to conduct any such operations. None of us would be pleased at all to learn that France was either dropping bombs or using a hellfire missile launched from a drone to take out a French citizen within our sovereign land; regardless of any reason at all that the French may conjure. What would we say if they also took out Americans and their property in the assault, just "collateral damage?"

According to legend:

Our Navy Seals went to Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the man who had been on America's Most Wanted List since the morning of September 11, 2001.



If our military can kill Osama bin Laden, they can capture anyone on the globe, drag him here and convict him under the law.

For goodness sakes! America put Noriega in prison.

Why in God's name do we have to kill a sixteen year old, American boy whose only crime is having the wrong father?

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #3

---

See, that's the thing. I rarely disagree with Mark Levin on almost anything, but I heard him talking about a similar vein last evening: killing someone (American or not) on a "battlefield," "what's the difference if we use a drone or drop a bomb from an airplane," etc. Things along those lines. BUT, I am not aware of any "battlefield" in Yemen (nor Pakistan). Since our Congress has not declared war on either of these countries, we have no valid reason for violating their sovereignty to conduct any such operations. None of us would be pleased at all to learn that France was either dropping bombs or using a hellfire missile launched from a drone to take out a French citizen within our sovereign land; regardless of any reason at all that the French may conjure. What would we say if they also took out Americans and their property in the assault, just "collateral damage?"

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #2

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #1

---

American Thinker
by Rick Moran
February 7, 2013

Congressional intelligence committee members are going to find out today how the Justice Department has rationalized the killing of Americans by drone strike without due process. The Obama administration has authorized the release of a classified report that goes into detail about how DoJ arrived at their controversial conclusions on not only drone strikes, but rendition and certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

(excerpted)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013...ue_process.html

---

This is one of those grey areas when you think about it.

There are actually situations where almost everyone agrees that killing an American without due process is ok? Shocked?

Let's play the hypothetical game for a little bit:

Imagine a pick up a gun point it at police officers and start firing? Would you argue that they have to go through "due process"?

Imagine a US soldier has picked up a rifle and has switched sides clearly and begins firing on American troops. Should they have to go through "due process"?

Now imagine a battlefield where a number of US soldiers have switched sides? This is where it gets "grey area"?

How much time and resources do we have to gather evidence that they have switched sides?

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with Obama's arguments, my point is that it's more complicated than many people realize.

And of course the left would be screaming bloody murder about this were this Bush killing Americans. Absolutely no argument there.

---

Zitat

---

You wouldn't hesitate to kill a fellow American if you were facing him on a battlefield. Nor would you halt the battle and ask if he's received due process before shooting him.There were a few instances in World War II where German American citizens, fighting for the Nazis were killed by American troops. Nobody was concerned then about whether the enemy's constitutional rights had been respected.

But drone strikes are a different matter. So classified is the information upon which any kill order would be based that it would be extremely difficult to reveal it in any legal proceeding. As a practical matter, due process may be short circuited. But questions about whether there should be other checks on the power of the president to order the targeted killing of an American citizen should be asked and Congress should have input into the matter.

---

While you raise some valid points under certain situations, what is being missed in all of this is giving a President who has demonstrated repeatedly no respect for the rule of law, and no respect for the Constitution, unlimited and unchecked power. Do you really want that?

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #5

---

Well lets expand on that, shall we? Should the US have declared war on Pakistan before we killed bin Laden?

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #5

---

Well lets expand on that, shall we? Should the US have declared war on Pakistan before we killed bin Laden?

---

Well, first of all I don't believe the "legend" as it was written, but that's fodder for another thread.

To answer the question: I don't believe the US military should ever violate the sovereignty of another nation to perform any type of military (or "police") operation of any type, unless we are either waging a formally declared (by Congress) war, or are explicitly invited by that nation to perform the operation.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #6

---

While you raise some valid points under certain situations, what is being missed in all of this is giving a President who has demonstrated repeatedly no respect for the rule of law, and no respect for the Constitution, unlimited and unchecked power. Do you really want that?

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #5

---

Well lets expand on that, shall we? Should the US have declared war on Pakistan before we killed bin Laden?

---

Well, first of all I don't believe the "legend" as it was written, but that's fodder for another thread.

To answer the question: I don't believe the US military should ever violate the sovereignty of another nation to perform any type of military (or "police") operation of any type, unless we are either waging a formally declared (by Congress) war, or are explicitly invited by that nation to perform the operation.

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #9

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #6

---

While you raise some valid points under certain situations, what is being missed in all of this is giving a President who has demonstrated repeatedly no respect for the rule of law, and no respect for the Constitution, unlimited and unchecked power. Do you really want that?

---

I think I've made it clear I'm not an Obama fan, but the argument that this absolutely shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances isn't as clear cut as many would assume.

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #10

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #5

---

Well lets expand on that, shall we? Should the US have declared war on Pakistan before we killed bin Laden?

---

Well, first of all I don't believe the "legend" as it was written, but that's fodder for another thread.

To answer the question: I don't believe the US military should ever violate the sovereignty of another nation to perform any type of military (or "police") operation of any type, unless we are either waging a formally declared (by Congress) war, or are explicitly invited by that nation to perform the operation.

---

Ok, so you don't believe bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

Hypothetically speaking though, would you be for or against it, assuming it was true?

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #3

---

See, that's the thing. I rarely disagree with Mark Levin on almost anything, but I heard him talking about a similar vein last evening: killing someone (American or not) on a "battlefield," "what's the difference if we use a drone or drop a bomb from an airplane," etc. Things along those lines. BUT, I am not aware of any "battlefield" in Yemen (nor Pakistan). Since our Congress has not declared war on either of these countries, we have no valid reason for violating their sovereignty to conduct any such operations. None of us would be pleased at all to learn that France was either dropping bombs or using a hellfire missile launched from a drone to take out a French citizen within our sovereign land; regardless of any reason at all that the French may conjure. What would we say if they also took out Americans and their property in the assault, just "collateral damage?"

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #12

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #10

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #5

---

Well lets expand on that, shall we? Should the US have declared war on Pakistan before we killed bin Laden?

---

Well, first of all I don't believe the "legend" as it was written, but that's fodder for another thread.

To answer the question: I don't believe the US military should ever violate the sovereignty of another nation to perform any type of military (or "police") operation of any type, unless we are either waging a formally declared (by Congress) war, or are explicitly invited by that nation to perform the operation.

---

Ok, so you don't believe bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

Hypothetically speaking though, would you be for or against it, assuming it was true?

---

Asked and answered, counselor!

My answer is, as above:

To answer the question: I don't believe the US military should ever violate the sovereignty of another nation to perform any type of military (or "police") operation of any type, unless we are either waging a formally declared (by Congress) war, or are explicitly invited by that nation to perform the operation.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #13

---

Here's some interesting background on the 16 year old killed by drone:

Media Confirms Barack Obama Called For Drone Bombing of 16 Year-Old Denver Boy

---