The White House is “Judge, Jury and Executioner” of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks

[MightySanta]

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.

Read more here: The White House is “Judge, Jury and Executioner” of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks - Washington's Blog

 

[HenryWallace]

CHECKS And BALANCES People! What happened to this great country?! How did we allow this to go so far? Is this true Democracy? The type that we "Spread" all over the world, by the barrel of a gun...

 

[BE Mike]

The administration got this one right. When an American citizen becomes a traitor and Muslim terrorist, he has made his own bed. He should sleep in it, preferably a long dirt nap. Unfortunately these terrorist cowards tend to gather women and children around them and they are sometimes killed or injured.

This is nothing new. Our armed forces have killed American citizens who fought for the Axis in WWII (try to find that in any history book). They were our enemies. Our military didn't know it and/or didn't care. Armed drones over the U.S.? That is another matter indeed.

 

[Mark 1911]

The administration got this one right. When an American citizen becomes a traitor and Muslim terrorist, he has made his own bed. He should sleep in it, preferably a long dirt nap. Unfortunately these terrorist cowards tend to gather women and children around them and they are sometimes killed or injured.

This is nothing new. Our armed forces have killed American citizens who fought for the Axis in WWII (try to find that in any history book). They were our enemies. Our military didn't know it and/or didn't care. Armed drones over the U.S.? That is another matter indeed.

In the case of WWII you refer to, I bet there was more than one man making the call, probably a lot of top brass in the military. But it should not be up to just one man, especially one as deceptive and dishonest as Obama. If we start using this kind of approach to rid America of threats, he may just start picking off gun owners because he thinks its OK. If anyone is deserving of a "drone strike" at this point, it's Obama, but even that drone strike requires due process, and its called impeachment.

 

[mrjarrell]

Does anyone seriously think that any future republicrat president will relinquish this power? Not me. They'll gleefully use themselves. This is a bad precedent that's been set and it will be misused in the future. Quite likely here in the states and against regular people that government just doesn't like.

 

[Spikedog]

Here are the parts that bothers me.

And given that the government may consider normal Americans who criticize any government policy to be terrorists

Indeed, the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield. The U.S. is already allowing military operations within the United States.

This is one step from using force on US soil to stop a 'threat'. We are getting a little too close to BHO ordering 'terrorists' put down right here!

 

[BE Mike]

Going from terrorist traitors on foreign soil to ordinary American citizens on U.S. soil is a huge leap. I don't advocate using military force against U.S. citizens on home soil, but using drones to kill terrorists on foreign soil, especially leaders, where the risk of great casualties to our troops in a raid, rules out that option, is fine with me. Much of this concern has been since the advent of surgical strike ability. Nowadays, many people want to fight terrorism, but get squeamish when faced with the horror of war it entails. If one is against these types of strikes, then I suppose he or she would have to be against the raid on OBL's compound. As far as decision making goes, I think the less politicians are involved the better, otherwise we learned little, from a military standpoint, from the war in Viet Nam.

 

[HenryWallace]

I can't agree with anyone taking a life if not threatened directly. When they can say "anyone who disagrees" or "The entire World as battle Ground"(NDAA)... or "Any emotion can be seen as a Mental Disorder" (Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5). It just leaves the door open for disaster.

 

[HenryWallace]

If this is the sort of Video Game Warfare that is implemented on other nations, eventually to make it's way home, how bleak our future is when an uninformed party can push a button to destroy and mame individuals who had just as much of a right to live as anyone.

Where does it end?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Going from terrorist traitors on foreign soil to ordinary American citizens on U.S. soil is a huge leap. I don't advocate using military force against U.S. citizens on home soil, but using drones to kill terrorists on foreign soil, especially leaders, where the risk of great casualties to our troops in a raid, rules out that option is fine with me. Much of this concern has been since the advent of surgical strike ability. Nowadays, many people want to fight terrorism, but get squeamish when faced with the horror of war it entails. If one is against these types of strikes, then I suppose he or she would have to be against the raid on OBL's compound. As far as decision making goes, I think the less politicians are involved the better, otherwise we learned little, from a military standpoint, from the war in Viet Nam.

In practical terms, it is quite a leap, but in terms of the law (as opposed to the sales pitch given to the sheep) it really isn't. It is an arbitrary decision made by a political appointee that a citizen is a terrorist. That's it. No due process (which, incidentally, is a constitutional right). Now, do you really want to face the consequences of being denied constitutional rights because some political hack arbitrarily decides to do so? How about that in combination with the fact that being an INGO member pretty well assures us that we are all terrorist material according to the documentation from DHS which claims such for any one of being a veteran, believing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing illegal immigration, opposing abortion, or believing in the second coming of Christ. It is a foregone conclusion that we all support the Second Amendment.

You intertwined support for this type of strike and the raid on OBL. This is not necessarily true. OBL was an overt enemy who publicly took credit for attacking the United States. You further stated that the further we keep politicians from war, the better. Why then are you supporting summary execution on the orders of political hacks? If a US citizen catches a bullet, bomb, or rocket directed 'to whom it may concern' while engaging in combat on behalf of, say, al-Qaeda, that is one thing. Targeting US citizens without due process, without any burden of proof aside from some appointee's opinion, and with such open-ended boundaries that it could apply to anyone anywhere at any time is dangerous beyond measure. Don't forget that we have had people detained and 'questioned' for the egregious offense of having a Ron Paul sticker on their cars. Are you really sure you want it to be legal to use a drone to reduce them to chunks for having that Ron Paul sticker? After all, there are no objective standards and no due process--and obviously no appeal after the fact.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I can't agree with anyone taking a life if not threatened directly. When they can say "anyone who disagrees" or "The entire World as battle Ground"(NDAA)... or "Any emotion can be seen as a Mental Disorder" (Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5). It just leaves the door open for disaster.

You have hit dead center. Most any action or expression of emotion is either subject to being interpreted as illegal or proof of mental illness. The next step is that only the handpicked few are 'proper persons' in any context.

 

[cosermann]

Judge Napolitano has a good oped on this today.

President Obama gives himself permission to kill | Fox News

 

[HenryWallace]

In practical terms, it is quite a leap, but in terms of the law (as opposed to the sales pitch given to the sheep) it really isn't. It is an arbitrary decision made by a political appointee that a citizen is a terrorist. That's it. No due process (which, incidentally, is a constitutional right). Now, do you really want to face the consequences of being denied constitutional rights because some political hack arbitrarily decides to do so? How about that in combination with the fact that being an INGO member pretty well assures us that we are all terrorist material according to the documentation from DHS which claims such for any one of being a veteran, believing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing illegal immigration, opposing abortion, or believing in the second coming of Christ. It is a foregone conclusion that we all support the Second Amendment.

You intertwined support for this type of strike and the raid on OBL. This is not necessarily true. OBL was an overt enemy who publicly took credit for attacking the United States. You further stated that the further we keep politicians from war, the better. Why then are you supporting summary execution on the orders of political hacks? If a US citizen catches a bullet, bomb, or rocket directed 'to whom it may concern' while engaging in combat on behalf of, say, al-Qaeda, that is one thing. Targeting US citizens without due process, without any burden of proof aside from some appointee's opinion, and with such open-ended boundaries that it could apply to anyone anywhere at any time is dangerous beyond measure. Don't forget that we have had people detained and 'questioned' for the egregious offense of having a Ron Paul sticker on their cars. Are you really sure you want it to be legal to use a drone to reduce them to chunks for having that Ron Paul sticker? After all, there are no objective standards and no due process--and obviously no appeal after the fact.

Great points here!
How much farther will the elastic pants stretch on the powers of this one individual? When it's Supposed to be For the people, by the people, and answerable to the people. Yet using our liberties against us in a form always known by the forefathers of this nation, and simply looking for a twitch to exercise it's disrespectful force upon us.
I grew up knowing that these powers were being used for political and monetary gain instead of the enlightening and helpful agendas, and that was over thirty years ago... How much farther can they push us and corner us before they strike or we...
I hate the thought, but our having knowledge of probably 50% of it's actual intent is most likely there just to push us to the edge. TO POKE and PROVOKE!

 

[BE Mike]

I can't agree with anyone taking a life if not threatened directly. When they can say "anyone who disagrees" or "The entire World as battle Ground"(NDAA)... or "Any emotion can be seen as a Mental Disorder" (Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5). It just leaves the door open for disaster.

We aren't talking about self-defense in the criminal sense. This is war we are talking about. It is a different kind of war than we've dealt with before, but still war.

 

[BE Mike]

In practical terms, it is quite a leap, but in terms of the law (as opposed to the sales pitch given to the sheep) it really isn't. It is an arbitrary decision made by a political appointee that a citizen is a terrorist. That's it. No due process (which, incidentally, is a constitutional right). Now, do you really want to face the consequences of being denied constitutional rights because some political hack arbitrarily decides to do so? How about that in combination with the fact that being an INGO member pretty well assures us that we are all terrorist material according to the documentation from DHS which claims such for any one of being a veteran, believing in following the Constitution, supporting the Second Amendment, opposing illegal immigration, opposing abortion, or believing in the second coming of Christ. It is a foregone conclusion that we all support the Second Amendment.

You intertwined support for this type of strike and the raid on OBL. This is not necessarily true. OBL was an overt enemy who publicly took credit for attacking the United States. You further stated that the further we keep politicians from war, the better. Why then are you supporting summary execution on the orders of political hacks? If a US citizen catches a bullet, bomb, or rocket directed 'to whom it may concern' while engaging in combat on behalf of, say, al-Qaeda, that is one thing. Targeting US citizens without due process, without any burden of proof aside from some appointee's opinion, and with such open-ended boundaries that it could apply to anyone anywhere at any time is dangerous beyond measure. Don't forget that we have had people detained and 'questioned' for the egregious offense of having a Ron Paul sticker on their cars. Are you really sure you want it to be legal to use a drone to reduce them to chunks for having that Ron Paul sticker? After all, there are no objective standards and no due process--and obviously no appeal after the fact.

I believe that this is war and we should hunt down and kill all terrorists, especially those who are the leaders. Drones, fortunately, give us the option to do that without risking the lives of the loyal Americans who are serving in the military. I said, from a military point of view, that the farther we keep politicians from making tactical decisions in war, the better, and I stand by that. It is the people who want to treat terrorists like offenders and provide them legal protections who have me baffled. There is no way that we can fight terrorists if we are to take the intelligence we have which, provides the basis for classifying these people as terrorists and make it available for public hearings. Yeah, we know that OBL was evil because we saw him on tv spouting his politics. Just because we don't see these citizen terrorists doing the same, doesn't mean that they aren't just as dedicated to fighting against us. Oh yeah, no I don't think that people who have bumper stickers ought to be blown to bits. Seriously, did I really have to say that?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I believe that this is war and we should hunt down and kill all terrorists, especially those who are the leaders. Drones, fortunately, give us the option to do that without risking the lives of the loyal Americans who are serving in the military. I said, from a military point of view, that the farther we keep politicians from making tactical decisions in war, the better, and I stand by that. It is the people who want to treat terrorists like offenders and provide them legal protections who have me baffled. There is no way that we can fight terrorists if we are to take the intelligence we have which, provides the basis for classifying these people as terrorists and make it available for public hearings. Yeah, we know that OBL was evil because we saw him on tv spouting his politics. Just because we don't see these citizen terrorists doing the same, doesn't mean that they aren't just as dedicated to fighting against us. Oh yeah, no I don't think that people who have bumper stickers ought to be blown to bits. Seriously, did I really have to say that?

Come on. If the government is allowed to do this to one citizen, it can do it to any citizen. You are failing to make any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and those taking up arms and those who are not. Accepting summary execution based solely on the subjective opinion of a political hack is a pretty damned low bar. If you enjoy being vertical and breathing you may want to reconsider your thoughts, especially given that as a veteran and an INGO member I consider it safe to say that you qualify as meeting at least two of the characteristics of which DHS considers only one to establish you as terrorist material. Don't willfully hand the government a club to hit other people unless you don't mind being hit with it yourself.

As for the bumper stickers, it wasn't my idea. If people with politically incorrect bumper stickers can be considered terrorist enough to detain and interrogate, why can't they be subject to drone strikes. You accept the progression from one step to the other with people you are satisfied represent a future threat if they happen to be driving down a highway in another country. Location isn't much of a difference here.

 

[Bummer]

I believe that this is war and we should hunt down and kill all terrorists, especially those who are the leaders.

Terrorism is a point of view. In their minds they are freedom fighters engaged against a dishonorable enemy. Whether or not they're right depends a lot upon who you are and where you live.

Terrorist is an arbitrary term. Certainly it once had a real meaning, but that is long gone. Once upon a time you had to kill civilians with the intent of forcing a political change to be labeled a terrorist. Today all you have to do is rub the right politician the wrong way. Even you may one day be deemed a terrorist by insane government.

I've shot Anwar Al-Awlaki a number of times. I have a picture of him that I printed out and used as a target at the range. We weren't buddies. I do not approve of what he did. None the less, to the best of my knowledge all he did is talk and write. I'm thinking the First Amendment might apply, assuming of course that we actually believe what it says. I've seen nothing to indicate he actually renounced his citizenship. I do not believe that soil he stood on made him any less a citizen. I do not believe you, Obama, or Obama's posse have/had the right to strip him of his citizenship. I believe he should have been brought home, by force if needed, and put on trial.

You mention Osama Bin Laden. Again not a buddy. Still, he wasn't a head of state. He was the head of a criminal organization. He should have been captured, brought here, tried, and fed pork until he died. I approve of the end result, but the method used involved the invasion of a sovereign Nation and the murder of a foreign national. Not a lot of respect for the rule of law there.

Without due process that is recognizable as due process our Constitution really is just a G.D. piece of paper. I don't like that very much. In the end I think this stuff is critically important. Either we all follow the law, or some of us follow the law as we're told and others follow the law as they manipulate it. In the latter case the rule of law is not worthy of an honorable man's respect.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I must absolutely and profoundly disagree with your arguments on this subject, as presented thus far.

 

[Denny347]

Regardless of what you think of Jon Stewart, his segment regarding this very issue is great.

Skygall - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/06/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[IndyDave1776]

Regardless of what you think of Jon Stewart, his segment regarding this very issue is great.

Skygall - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/06/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

That seems to sum it up nicely. He took the comical route to demonstrating the danger of accepting remote-control killing of citizens without evidence, charges, oversight, or any due process--including that it has no formal limit restricting it to use on the people it is being sold as exclusively affecting.

 

[BE Mike]

Come on. If the government is allowed to do this to one citizen, it can do it to any citizen. You are failing to make any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and those taking up arms and those who are not. Accepting summary execution based solely on the subjective opinion of a political hack is a pretty damned low bar. If you enjoy being vertical and breathing you may want to reconsider your thoughts, especially given that as a veteran and an INGO member I consider it safe to say that you qualify as meeting at least two of the characteristics of which DHS considers only one to establish you as terrorist material. Don't willfully hand the government a club to hit other people unless you don't mind being hit with it yourself.

As for the bumper stickers, it wasn't my idea. If people with politically incorrect bumper stickers can be considered terrorist enough to detain and interrogate, why can't they be subject to drone strikes. You accept the progression from one step to the other with people you are satisfied represent a future threat if they happen to be driving down a highway in another country. Location isn't much of a difference here.

What you can't seem to get your head around is that this is war. No, it's not the kind of war that we've had in the past. These citizen terrorists are traitors. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. They are enemy combatants. Under your definition Joseph Goebbels shouldn't have been considered an enemy combatant. You want to put roadblocks in the way of fighting our war on terror. Please don't label me as a terrorist. I don't care what yardstick you use.