Over a year ago, I penned a post, IT WAS WRONG. I haven’t altered my views any since then. I’ll reiterate……
Many years ago, I took an oath to uphold and defend our constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I’ve never recanted that oath.
In my view, I never believed any of the rights, privileges and protections, expressed and implied by the Constitution of the U.S. ever extended to people that were not or are not citizens.
But, to our citizens, all of it always applied.
I disagree with the citizens who would support terrorist groups against the US. They should die a horrific death. And, I believe that if danger is imminent, then the protection of the citizenry is paramount.
For those who haven’t heard or read, NBC has found a memo which supposedly contained the legal justification of killing American citizens without due process. Here is what NBC highlighted…….(my bold)
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
The entire memo can be found here. (pdf).
It’s even more interesting when you read what the paper explicitly states what it isn’t saying.
“The paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful; nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a US citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an operation against a US citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such forces.”
So, what is the implicit nature of these statements? We don’t require evidence of a specific attack or imminence of an attack. Neither does the citizen necessarily have to be a leader of a group. And, it seems not to require that the citizen even be part of a group. Guess what else it doesn’t discuss…….. whether or not US this applies to US soil.
None of this is acceptable. While I admit to not voting for Obama, one of my biggest hopes for his presidency was to rescind or limit the powers of the executive branch in this regard. Due process is a guarantee of the constitution.
It is pretty straight forward. If the danger is imminent, then other citizens take precedence. If not, then all of the rights and guarantees of the US constitution apply. No one has the authority to supersede this. Congress doesn’t, Bush didn’t, and Obama doesn’t.
Will anything come of the bluster now coming from some senators? Not a chance. They’ve sat quietly, each time renewing the supposed authority for the president. And, they’ll do it again unless the people start making noise about this. A lot of noise.
I understand the high emotive reactions some may have. Disagreements and discussions are always welcome. Keep any comments civil.
Pre Crime lives
No doubt. Where’s the ACLU now?
“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Don’t criticize Obama.
Because you may be next.
No doubt, we can be determined to be a danger! Boom! End of story.
“Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?” – Mr Obama
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/obama-drone-joke-was-it-offens.html?hpid=artslot
Guess what else it doesn’t discuss…….. where.
I disagree page six
“OUTSIDE the United States”
Page nine
“Citizen abroad”
Page ten
“Outside the United States:”
Page sixteen
“Outside the United States”
I right…. I’ll change that, it should say it doesn’t prohibit doing this on domestic land.
Yeppers! It’s a terrible piece of work but………..
Use to be that the government went to all lengths to protect its citizens OUTSIDE the US (anyone remember the Iranian Hostage crises???).
This regime uses them as target practice.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
OPEN FOR DISCUSSION: [ maybe a new thread? ].:)
This paper is based on International and Domestic case law.
One of the biggest problems within, of course, … is affording / refusing due process to American citizens.
BUT WHAT ELSE DOES IT DO?
DOES It provide cover to bypass “ACTS OF WAR”?
Example:
China has a citizen who escapes and given asylum to the United States say… Mr.Chen Guangcheng. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/china-clinton-visit/index.html
China labels Mr. Chen Guangcheng a terrorist.
Using the same justification as this White Paper….. Would it be ” A RIGHTEOUS ACT” or an “ACT OF WAR” when China drones him on Untied States Soil?
Act of war unless given permission by the US Government. Regardless of whether he is a “terrorist” or a peace loving hippie, a foreign power invaded the US and committed an act of aggression.
Yep.
TRUE: But this White Paper does / talks nothing about permissions needed or being granted by foreign countries.
In fact it’s exclusionary .of those permissions. It’s also exclusionary of any “RIGHTS” that might be granted to a US citizen of a foreign country
A thought occurred to me. If a state of war exists between the US and other countries, such as it has since 2001 (or 1979 with a country that will not be named or even since 49/50 with another one), would war rules apply with this memo. If it does, then I worry a bit less. If it doesn’t, then we have a “Houston, we have a problem” scenario.
Agreed!