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

[PLC1]

Its happening? really? In the US? when?
Worldwide...yes...again...war...not criminals. In war there is no rule that says wait until they are about to shoot you before you shoot them. No one has any illusions that those rules of war overseas, and the rules of law enforcement in the US are not different.

So am still not seeing any issue that has to do with drones here. Just general fears being put on the Drones that have nothing to do with Drones themself.

It has nothing to do with the drones themselves, no. It has to do with who is controlling the drones.

We are not at war with Yemen, nor are we at war with Pakistan.
And no one is using drones in the US for more than surveillance yet.

And when and if it happens the first time, I'd not like to see only the people who support the party opposite that of the president protest. I'd like to see the country protest.

But, more than likely, one more escalation in the "war on terror" won't bring much of an outcry except that motivated by partisanship.

 

[Texas_tea]

We are not at war with Yemen, nor are we at war with Pakistan.
And no one is using drones in the US for more than surveillance yet.

This is correct. However, this administration has already killed a minor, American citizen who was not on any sort of terrorist list, not even accused of a crime and by all evidence that is available was the intended target.

And, then refused to release any information on the attack and has gone so far as to block the ACLU lawsuit to keep from providing any information.

Also, it took several weeks and an 11 hour filibuster from Rand Paul to get the AG to even answer the question if the US Government had the right to kill American citizens on American soil who are not engaged without due process.

Now, I will agree I too would like to see this not be a partisan issue and the whole Country take a stand against what this administration is doing if for any other reason to limit the powers of this President and any others to come.

However, as I posted above about Obama extending and expanding the Patriot Act to spying on innocent citizens and as evidenced by our low informed members of this board I fear that this will be an issue divided down party lines.

I agree with what you said that the next "crisis" that comes up involving the war on terror this administration will advance it's unConstitutional agenda in this area even more. This should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association.

 

[PLC1]

This is correct. However, this administration has already killed a minor, American citizen who was not on any sort of terrorist list, not even accused of a crime and by all evidence that is available was the intended target.

And, then refused to release any information on the attack and has gone so far as to block the ACLU lawsuit to keep from providing any information.

Also, it took several weeks and an 11 hour filibuster from Rand Paul to get the AG to even answer the question if the US Government had the right to kill American citizens on American soil who are not engaged without due process.

Now, I will agree I too would like to see this not be a partisan issue and the whole Country take a stand against what this administration is doing if for any other reason to limit the powers of this President and any others to come.

However, as I posted above about Obama extending and expanding the Patriot Act to spying on innocent citizens and as evidenced by our low informed members of this board I fear that this will be an issue divided down party lines.

I agree with what you said that the next "crisis" that comes up involving the war on terror this administration will advance it's unConstitutional agenda in this area even more. This should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association.

Yes, it should.

And, should the next POTUS be a Republican, and should that POTUS decide to expand into a new and even bigger crisis, that should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association as well.

 

[Texas_tea]

Yes, it should.

And, should the next POTUS be a Republican, and should that POTUS decide to expand into a new and even bigger crisis, that should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association as well.

Yes ...
And this we can absolutely agree on!

 

[Cruella]

Yes, it should.

should the next POTUS be a Republican, and should that POTUS decide to expand into a new and even bigger crisis, that should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association as well.

You forgot one thing. The media. The fifth column of the democrat party has already said it's not news unless they report it. They won't report what democrats do, so it does not exist.

 

[Texas_tea]

You forgot one thing. The media. The fifth column of the democrat party has already said it's not news unless they report it. They won't report what democrats do, so it does not exist.

Like Fast and Furious ... Benghazi ... Hurricane Sandy ... extending and expanding the Patriot Act to include spying on innocent citizens .... NDAA?

 

[Cruella]

Like Fast and Furious ... Benghazi ... Hurricane Sandy ... extending and expanding the Patriot Act to include spying on innocent citizens .... NDAA?

You can write a book with just what Janet Napalitano has done with Homeland Security.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It has nothing to do with the drones themselves, no. It has to do with who is controlling the drones.

We are not at war with Yemen, nor are we at war with Pakistan.
And no one is using drones in the US for more than surveillance yet.

And when and if it happens the first time, I'd not like to see only the people who support the party opposite that of the president protest. I'd like to see the country protest.

But, more than likely, one more escalation in the "war on terror" won't bring much of an outcry except that motivated by partisanship.

so you want to protest something that no one has done, no one has suggested should be or could be done legally? As for who controls the drones.. the same people that control the black hawks, the a-10's, the Ambrams, the stingers...the....oddly they don't go around using them on Americans where normal police actions are effective and possible. ( and Pakistan and Yemen we are not at war with...but some if its people we are...and Pakistan and most likey Yemen...behind closed does support the strikes as they want those people gone as well)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes, it should.

And, should the next POTUS be a Republican, and should that POTUS decide to expand into a new and even bigger crisis, that should clearly alarm any normal thinking Freedom and Liberty loving citizen regardless of political association as well.

Only I have yet to see the "expansion" And I can't bitch about Obamas use of standard powers that have been around forever...to bash him for what some one else may do that they have stated is Illegal. I don't know what more you want from them when they say...No its Illegal..NO we don't plan to ever do it...NO we did not do it....and then I hear people cry as if they said hell yea we are going to do it!

 

[Texas_tea]

 

[Texas_tea]

Obama administration acknowledges drone strikes killed 4 Americans since 2009

Four American citizens have been killed in counter-terrorism drone strikes since 2009, the Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday.

Are we still arguing if the Obama regime can and will target American citizens on American soil?

 

[steveox]

Obama dials back drone strikes: 3 reasons why

Data collected by the media suggest that US drone strikes are declining. For President Obama, who has founded much of his counterterror strategy on drones, that's a significant development.

How's this for a paradox: US drone strikes are now declining under President Obama – the man who made drone strikes a primary element of his counterterrorism strategy.
President Obama has, in some ways, become known as the "drone president." His drone campaign started three days into the first term of his presidency. His national security policy has been defined, at least in part, by a penchant for targeted killings. And he has already authorized more than six times the number of strikes in Pakistan that President George W. Bush did in his entire presidency.

And yet, as the president prepares to make his case for drones in a Thursday address at the National Defense University in Washington, it turns out drone strikes are actually down considerably, according to an analysis in The New York Times.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-dials-back-drone-strikes-3-reasons-why-180437925.html

Its because of the Boston bombing. The terrorist wins.

 

[PLC1]

Obama administration acknowledges drone strikes killed 4 Americans since 2009

Four American citizens have been killed in counter-terrorism drone strikes since 2009, the Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday.

Are we still arguing if the Obama regime can and will target American citizens on American soil?

If they're willing to target them abroad, why not here? Where are they going to draw the line?

 

[Cruella]

In an almost incoherent speech today, (trying to distract everyone from his tri-scandals) Obama says he will now only use drones to protect Americans in an eminent attack, while he tries to close club gitmo.

Too bad he didn't decide to do this during his Benghazi sabbatical.

 

[steveox]

Drones save American lives