Does the US Government Have the Right to Kill American Citizens with Drone Strikes

[Texas_tea]

Do you believe Eric Holder's answer to Rand Paul's question?
Keep in mind the government has killed US citizens abroad and here on American soil in the past.

Obviously Rand Paul and Ted Cruz do not believe the Obama Administration is telling the truth!

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Introduce Legislation to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens — Read the Entire Bill Here


U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday introduced legislation to explicitly prohibit drone killings of American citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat to the country.

 

[BigRob]

I have no issue with killing a terrorist wherever they may be -- even if that person happens to also be an American citizen.

 

[Texas_tea]

I have no issue with killing a terrorist wherever they may be -- even if that person happens to also be an American citizen.

And killing their family in separate strikes as well?

And who gets to define a terrorist?

You do realize that killing American citizens on American soil is against the Constitution, Right?

 

[Gipper]

I have no issue with killing a terrorist wherever they may be -- even if that person happens to also be an American citizen.

And if they are an American citizen in the US, do you intend to abide by the Constitution, or just kill them?

And who do you want to determine who is a terrorist, worthy of execution?

 

[Texas_tea]

And who do you want to determine who is a terrorist, worthy of execution?

Words like Conservatives, Patriots, TEA Party members and Extremist run hand and hand with today's liberals .... how long will it be before "terrorist" is added to those descriptions?

 

[PLC1]

Do you believe Eric Holder's answer to Rand Paul's question?
Keep in mind the government has killed US citizens abroad and here on American soil in the past.

View attachment 349

Obviously Rand Paul and Ted Cruz do not believe the Obama Administration is telling the truth!

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Introduce Legislation to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens — Read the Entire Bill Here


U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday introduced legislation to explicitly prohibit drone killings of American citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat to the country.


View attachment 352

View attachment 351

...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

"Due process of law" is covered in the right to a trial by jury.

When we allowed the government to deprive a citizen of property without due process, the door was opened a crack.
when indefinite detention passed with hardly any notice from the citizenry, the door opened a little bit wider.
It's just a short way to depriving us of life without due process.

The government keeps getting more and more powerful, and no one (well, almost no one. Rand Paul is doing an admirable job just now) does anything about it.

Ribbit, ribbit, isn't this water getting awfully warm?
Hey, I like warm water, don't you?

 

[BigRob]

And killing their family in separate strikes as well?

No, unless they meet the same criteria in the AUMF from 2001.

And who gets to define a terrorist?

Congress defined who can be targeted under the 2001 AUMF. It is not that the President has the power to just kill anyone. He has the power to kill an American citizen who is acting in concert with Al Qaeda or its affiliates.

You do realize that killing American citizens on American soil is against the Constitution, Right?

I have no doubt this reply will cause a stir, but no, I do not think this is always the case.

The President has the clear constitutional authority to keep to country safe -- that is not disputed, and the concepts for this can be found in the Federalist papers. Congress spelled out in the 2001 AUMF what could be targeted - if the President were to refuse to uphold this law and refuse his constitutional obligations to protect th country, then he could be violating his own oath to defend it.Gipper asks a similar question below,so I'll get into the background a little more to back up this point in a reply to him.

 

[BigRob]

And if they are an American citizen in the US, do you intend to abide by the Constitution, or just kill them?

And who do you want to determine who is a terrorist, worthy of execution?

Congress defines who can be targeted, and did exactly that in the AUMF from 2001. As I mentioned above, the President clearly has the constitutional obligation to protect the country. After 9/11, the AUMF spelled out who the President could target -- Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

There is actually a good DOJ memo from a few years ago that makes the argument better than I would. You can read it here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Now, if the President has the clear authority to target and kill Al Qaeda and its affiliates abroad, why does they power stop at the border? It is not the President has the ability to target and kill Americans -- he has the power to target and kill enemy combatants, who might happen to also be American.

And we should note that in terms of Al-Awlaki, he was the one defining himself as a terrorist, and actively participating in plots to attack the United States. Does the President not have the power to fulfill his constitutional obligations to protect the country because this active terrorist is an American citizen -- actively engaged in treason?

 

[BigRob]

...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

"Due process of law" is covered in the right to a trial by jury.

When we allowed the government to deprive a citizen of property without due process, the door was opened a crack.
when indefinite detention passed with hardly any notice from the citizenry, the door opened a little bit wider.
It's just a short way to depriving us of life without due process.

The government keeps getting more and more powerful, and no one (well, almost no one. Rand Paul is doing an admirable job just now) does anything about it.

Ribbit, ribbit, isn't this water getting awfully warm?
Hey, I like warm water, don't you?

Due process is not always the same as judicial process -- the two should not be confused.

 

[PLC1]

Due process is not always the same as judicial process -- the two should not be confused.

So, due process just means that Congress, in all of its wisdom, can define who is a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant", and that qualifies as "due process of law. Do you have any problem with that?

If not, you have more confidence in Congress than I do.

 

[Texas_tea]

About six months ago when the then director of the FBI Robert Muller was asked if Americans can be killed on American soil by drone strikes his reply was "ask the White House".

When John Brennan was asked the same question about three weeks ago he too replied "ask the White House".

When Eric Holder was asked this question about two weeks ago he equivocated.

Finally, two days ago after Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster, demanding an answer to this question, Eric Holder responded to Ted Cruz' request for an answer with a simple "no" in the letter I posted above.

The AUMF only authorizes military force abroad, not here on American soil. To kill Americans here on American soil is to strip the 5th Amendment.

However, we will never know if White House acted lawfully in killing Al-Awlaki and then killing his 16 year old son in a separate attack who was born in Denver, CO in 1995 and not involved in his fathers terrorist organization because the White House refuses to release to OLC memo which would give us the factual basis to determine if the conduct was legal. Without these factual basis we have to trust that the White House acted legally.

I believe they did not, there is no other reason to justify not releasing the OLC memo. And, if they can kill Americans abroad and refuse to release information about the legality of their conduct than one can responsibly assume that they can do it here on American soil as well. After all, it has happened in the past.

 

[PLC1]

The AUMF only authorizes military force abroad, not here on American soil. To kill Americans here on American soil is to strip the 5th Amendment.

.

First, the government has had no problem stripping the Fifth Amendment so far.
Second, the amendment doesn't read "unless, of course, the citizen is on foreign soil, in which case all bets are off."

 

[Texas_tea]

First, the government has had no problem stripping the Fifth Amendment so far.
Second, the amendment doesn't read "unless, of course, the citizen is on foreign soil, in which case all bets are off."

My point exactly.

And, put into context with the rhetoric used by Muller, Brennen and Holder and the passing of the NDAA ... is it any wonder why Americans fear the use of drones in the US and why Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are proposing legislation to protect Americans from this out of control tyrannical government.

 

[Cruella]

.

There is actually a good DOJ memo from a few years ago that makes the argument better than I would. You can read it here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Now, if the President has the clear authority to target and kill Al Qaeda and its affiliates abroad, why does they power stop at the border? It is not the President has the ability to target and kill Americans -- he has the power to target and kill enemy combatants, who might happen to also be American.

That memo was from 2001. Holder too has issued 11 memos with regard to Obama's legal use of drones. Six
of those he has refused to release to congress.

Obama has shown over and over his disdain for the constitution and his lack of co-operation with congress, even after being subpoenaed over and over again. Holder was held in contempt for his refusal to release information about Fast and Furious and they are doing the same thing now with Benghazi.

 

[BigRob]

That memo was from 2001. Holder too has issued 11 memos with regard to Obama's legal use of drones. Six
of those he has refused to release to congress.

Of course it is from 2001. Let's face it, that is really the beginning of this whole debate -- and getting the context that memo provides is important.

Obama has shown over and over his disdain for the constitution and his lack of co-operation with congress, even after being subpoenaed over and over again. Holder was held in contempt for his refusal to release information about Fast and Furious and they are doing the same thing now with Benghazi.

Is the issue at hand the legal question of killing combatants who happen to be American citizens, or is now a question of Executive Priviledge?