The AUMF did not state that it granted the President to hunt down Al Qaeda and its affiliates, but only abroad. Further, due proess of law does not automatically equate to judicial process -- the 5th amendment assures due process of law, but such process can in fact come from the Executive Branch in some scenarios -- this being one I would argue.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Does the US Government Have the Right to Kill American Citizens with Drone Strikes
- Thread starter Texas_tea
- Start date
The AUMF did not state that it granted the President to hunt down Al Qaeda and its affiliates, but only abroad. Further, due proess of law does not automatically equate to judicial process -- the 5th amendment assures due process of law, but such process can in fact come from the Executive Branch in some scenarios -- this being one I would argue.
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
There is no legal right for the government to kill non-combatant Americans on American soil without due process. However they have ignored this before in the past and now with drone technology it appears that the 5th Amendment is about to be extinct along with the 4th Amendment as well.
The White House has not asserted that they can kill non-combatants on American soil without due process -- they barely asserted they can even kill combatants on US soil without due process.
They have stated that, in theory (but most likely never in practice), that they have the ability to target Al Qaeda and its affiliates who also happen to be US citizens.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Why was it so hard for Former FBI Director Robert Mueller to answer that question? Why was it so hard for John Brennan to answer the question? Why was it so hard for AG Eric Holder to answer the question? Why did it take several letters, multiple congressional hearings and a 13 hour filibuster to answer a question that all Americans and any of these idiots predecessors would have answered with an immediate NO!
We all know why! This President doesn't think there are limits to his power!
They killed Anwar al-Awlaki and one other American in Yemen. Then in a separate attack days later killed al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also an American citizen and a minor who was not associated with his fathers terror network. Obama's Top Advisor Robert Gibbs then justified the killing of this child by saying "he should have chosen a far more responsible father".
I would argue that this conduct is much more than just a "theory" as you say and certainly has been put into "practice"!
They dodged the question because they probably had not had any remarks on the subject cleared or vetted. That is hardly surprising. In terms of the filibuster from Senator Paul and the legislation proposed by Paul and Cruz -- it does not change anything. It establishes a straw man argument and then attempts to legislate against it for political points.
In every instance, they both claim the White House does have such power if such a person is presenting an imminent threat. Al Qaeda operatives working in the United States are a threat at all times -- and limiting our power to eliminate them is absurd. Essentially, Paul and Cruz are demanding that the White House take the position that the White House already holds.
Good.
Not associated??? According to reports on that strike, "Yemeni officials said the dead from the strike included Ibrahim al-Banna, the Egyptian media chief for al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate, and also a brother of Fahd al-Quso, a senior al-Qaeda operative who was indicted in New York in the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden." These are some interesting people to be hanging out with if you are not associated with them.
That was in regards to the killing of enemy combatants abroad who also happen to be US citizens. The theoretical part arises on the question of killing them inside the United States via a drone strike -- something which has not occurred, the administrations essentially says will never happen, but in theory, is possible.
Who gets to decide who's an enemy combatant and who is, or may be, associated with Al Qaeda? Moreover, it's not just Al Qaeda, but a "terrorist organization." Who gets to decide which organizations are "terrorist"?
Answer: The government. Next question: Who keeps getting more and more power?
Answer when we come back, folks. Stay tuned.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
"Remarks on the subject cleared or vetted"? Are you serious?
"Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
This is a straight forward question that every elementary school child should know. The answer is NO! Due process is guaranteed to all Americans under the Bill of Rights! The NDAA already violates these rights and now we have a Presidency with an admitted "kill list" that will not answer this question clearly without several letters, multiple congressional hearings and a 13 hour filibuster. And, you say this is "hardly surprising"? I say that is extremely alarming.
A Straw man argument is defined as: an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.
Asking the question "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" is not an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position. It is a simple yes or no position. Had the Administration said no in the beginning it would have clarified Obama's position on this subject. But, they did not and in context with killing a 16 year old boy abroad who is an American citizen, not accused of a crime and not on Obama's "kill list" makes the Paul/Cruz question absolutely relevant and their propose legislation is not for political points but to protect the American people from this tyrannical government.
They do not agree on this point. Again, the question was "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Not engaged does not pose an imminent threat. However, that is not the only reason for the proposed legislation from Paul/Cruz and it clearly does not reflect the position that the White House already holds.
In the memo obtained by NBC News that explains the justification for the killing of al-Awlaki by an expansion of the previous definition of what makes an "imminent threat" to the United States. The explanation of these new expanded definitions under Obama are clearly too open and can include American citizens who are not engaged. Moreover, it does not exclude them!
This is not confirmed by the US. The young al-Awlaki's family stated he was with other youths. He had not seen his father in 2 years. But all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he was not accused of a crime, he was a minor, an American citizen and was not on Obama's kill list. And, moreover Obama refuses to release the details of this case.
No it was not.
In the 2 min. 40 sec. mark of this video Gibbs clearly states in response to being asked how the Obama administration justifies killing an underage American citizen without due process that "he should have chosen a far more responsible father".
As Tom Junod stated:
Barack Obama has created the Lethal Presidency by insisting he that he has been given the power to kill, in secret, anyone who is plotting against Americans or American interests, even if he or she is an American citizen.
It will be very difficult to constrain that power, no matter who is president. But if the Lethal Presidency is going to have any accountability at all, we should demand that Congress pass a law stating that if the administration kills an American citizen, it should not be able to keep all the particulars secret. The administration should be compelled to say who it killed and why. It should be compelled to say why it killed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and the obvious fact that it will never do so — and that such a modest law as the one I'm proposing will never be passed — shows how entrenched the Lethal Presidency has become, and how lethal it really is.
[/quote]Well of course it is the government...who else do you want to do it? You? Me? Many people might say the Courts -- but then again they are in fact part of the government.
Who is it that you want to make these decisions exactly?
I don't think anyone should have the power to say, "You're an enemy combatant because I say so, therefore, you're dead."
007 had a license to kill, but he wasn't real.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Our intelligence agencies are the ones to determine this in accordance to the law. Not a sitting President shrouded in secrecy.
And, again, if it is an American citizen on American soil or abroad that is not actively engaged then due process has to apply!
Yes -- and if you ever have the misfortune to work for one of these departments and prep people for this type of testimony -- that is a huge factor.
Its far more complicated, and that question misses a lot of the context. The President clearly has the authority to target and kill enemy combatants abroad who also happen to be US citizens...such action has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Further, it ignores the issues surrounding who performs that due process -- "due process" is not always "judicial process."
It is not simple. What is "combat", what is an "associate" of Al Qaeda, what does "engaged" mean? I would wager you will get 10 different answers if you ask 10 different people. It an extremely complicated issue that is being used for political points. Fine...but let's not pretend that the underlying issues are not legitimate, and that the Executive Branch is not on firm legal ground.
How do you define "engaged"...what doe "imminent" mean? Imagine if we find a terror cell that is plotting to blow up various oil facilities. Are we supposed to just sit there and do nothing because they are not in a car on the way to the facility? Is planning not engagement? This might be the only shot we get at this cell, and we are supposed to just sit there and ignore it because our versions of "engaged" differ? That is absurd. The President has the constitutional obligation to protect the country -- I will not fault a President (of either party) for doing that.
I read the memo, and I don't really find any issues with its rationale.
What reason do we have to doubt the report from the Yemenis officials? Do you truly believe we just targeted some random 16 year old kid out with his buddies. Frankly, I have no reason to doubt the Yemenis report. It has been reported that US officials have confirmed off the record that their story is accurate.
Gibb's comment is stupid -- but doesn't change any of the rationale behind the incident.
Then lobby Congress to pass the law.... nothing is stopping that.
How then do you propose we conduct the fighting of a war?
Our intelligence agencies, like the CIA, report to the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President....
What is "active", what is "engaged"....
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
This does not give the President of the US the right to create an admitted "kill list"!
Now we are getting down to the heart of our discussion. The original question Rand Paul asked goes as follows:
"Well, words do make a difference, and I would feel a little more comfortable if we would get in writing a letter that says he doesn’t believe killing people not actively engaged in combat with drones in America, on American soil, is constitutional."
-Rand Paul
If you will notice in Eric Holder's response .... he left out the word "actively" engaged and responded with just "engaged".
Holder's response:
"Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"
Why is this? These words should absolutely be defined into law.
I do not claim to know you're political ideology however my intuition tells me that in reality you are not comfortable with a sitting president being able to manipulate words and put American citizens on American soil on a "kill list" or in prison without due process (i.e. NDAA)! That is exactly what is happening here. This is a non-debatable point. The killing of al-Awlaki's son is surrounded in secrecy and the White House is refusing to release the details of this attack.
Remember the Hutaree Militia in Michigan that the Obama Administration accused plotting an anti-government uprising? This group was later acquitted by Judge Victoria A. Roberts in a Federal District Court. She stated: “The government’s case is built largely of circumstantial evidence,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/hutaree-militia-members-acquitted-of-sedition.html?_r=0
What if Obama had labeled this group as "engaged" in a plot against the Country, killed them in a drone strike and then refused to release the information of who and why?
Surely you see this as a slippery slope and a power that no sitting US President should have.
Werbung:
If, and only if, our nation or its allies are attacked, the president asks the Congress for a declaration of war.
If there is a declaration of war, then the entire nation is on a war footing, everything possible is done to defeat the enemy, no holds barred.
If there is no declaration of war, then we are not at war.
We do not go into limited "wars" like the ones we've been fighting lately.
and we do not wage a war against a strategy of war, nor do we go to war without a clear idea what victory looks like.
How do we even know when the "war on terror" is won?
