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

[Gipper]

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?

Agreed.

And to your question, we will NEVER know when the war on terror is won....much like the war on poverty, war on drugs, etc....

That is why the government and all it's Statists love the war on terror. It allows government to grow and gain more power, while diminishing the rights of the individual.

 

[BigRob]

If, and only if, our nation or its allies are attacked, the president asks the Congress for a declaration of war.

What exactly consitutes an "attack" these days? Would a cyber attack that crashes the banking grid count? Do our interests abroad count?

Under Article 1, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President must ask Congress, you are correct. That said, there is nothing else in the Consitution that says how that war must be declared....there are no guidelines for what that legislation must look like.

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.

There was a "declaration of war"....it came via the AUMF in 2001. The Consitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but says nothing about what that legislation must include, what a declaration must look like etc. All it says is that Congress has the power, and via the AUMF in 2001, Congress expressly granted the authorization to use force in a war, thereby "declaring" a state of war.

You can call it a "limited" war, but the simple fact is that it is a Congressional authorized conflict that came about via a Congressional declaration that authorized the use of the force to kill Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

How do we even know when the "war on terror" is won?

This is a different issue -- but a good question. That said, you will note that in the AUMF, it doesn't authorize the President to fight a "war on terror." It authorizes the President to hunt down and kill Al Qaeda and their affiliates. The AUMF doesn't give the President the authority to just call anyone a terrorist and kill them...it gives him specific authority to target Al Qaeda and their affiliates.

Eliminate Al Qaeda and their splinter groups, and the war would be won.

 

[BigRob]

This does not give the President of the US the right to create an admitted "kill list"!

I might have misunderstood, so correct me if I am wrong here....

You stated that our intelligence agencies should be the ones who decide who should be on such a list (as long as it was done legally). But this is already what takes place. The White House doesn't just make up names to add to the list, they get this information from our intelligence agencies -- which report to the President.

And of course, my assertion is that the President has such power, assuming it conforms with the AUMF guidelines, and the additional requirements spelled out, and upheld by the Supreme Court, in regards to killing an enemy combatant abroad who happens to be an American citizen.

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 imagine he left it out for basically the reasons I've been stating. Words like that make a huge difference. How would you define "actively" -- ask 10 different people and you get 10 different answers. It still does not define "engaged", or "combat" though -- it really doesn't answer anything.

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.

My opinion is that the AUMF gave the President the power to hunt down and kill Al Qaeda and their affiliates. If those people happen to be the US citizens, then I have no problem with them being killed in this effort.

That said, and what Holder I believe stated ultimately as well, is that if those people are American citizens they do have other criteria that must be met before they can be killed -- I believe it was spelled out in Hamdi V. Rumsfeld but I am not entirely sure off the top of my head. Basically it has to be determined that capture is not possible if the target is an American citizen. Within the United States, this is really far less likely, since capture would be far easier -- but in theory (which Holder stated), the President does have the power to kill an American citizen on US soil who is an enemy combatant -- if capture is not possible.

As for killing them without due process, I dispute that they did not have due process. Due process does not automatically mean judical process -- I believe this concept has been upheld in court as well.

Look, I get your point, and part of me agrees with it, but I think from a theorhetical and legal perspective, the White House has a pretty solid argument as long as they conform to those few guidelines. Now if Congress wants to limit this authority, or clarify what it means, by all means let them do it.

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.

The President doesn't have such power -- he only has the power to go after Al Qaeda and its affiliates with lethal force -- and only on US soil if capture is not possible (based on the rules surrounding killing US citizens abroad).

 

[Cruella]

I'm reading where Brennan is a Muslim convert. Has anyone heard that before?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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?

actually its not. People are killed daily who are American Citizens. If you draw a gun on a cop and he shoots you...you did not get a trail...you where killed by a Federal officer, and no one cries for you or that your rights where violated.. On Sept 11...when the President ordered Civilian planes to be shot down after hijacted...we had no idea if American Citizens or not where the hijackers...If a F-16 or a Drone did the shooting...would it make a difference? no. SO in fact you and everyone on this board has always said that Drones could in a rare circumstance a citizen can be targeted and killed without trial...You just act like somehow a Drone is not the same as any other weapon that the goverment could use. Just like if your sitting at home at your desk...planning a bank robbery or a murder...they can;t just shoot you...They also can't legal use a drone on you as capture is possible at that point.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

And the White house has stated that there is no right to that...if you actually looked at the actual memos that have your panties in a bunch you would know that. But you realy just want to bitch about Obama so don't bother with facts...Just attack the white house for saying what you agree with and pretending they said the reverse.

 

[dogtowner]

actually its not. People are killed daily who are American Citizens. If you draw a gun on a cop and he shoots you...you did not get a trail...you where killed by a Federal officer, and no one cries for you or that your rights where violated.. On Sept 11...when the President ordered Civilian planes to be shot down after hijacted...we had no idea if American Citizens or not where the hijackers...If a F-16 or a Drone did the shooting...would it make a difference? no. SO in fact you and everyone on this board has always said that Drones could in a rare circumstance a citizen can be targeted and killed without trial...You just act like somehow a Drone is not the same as any other weapon that the goverment could use. Just like if your sitting at home at your desk...planning a bank robbery or a murder...they can;t just shoot you...They also can't legal use a drone on you as capture is possible at that point.

self defense and there are rukes in place for use of deadly force.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

self defense and there are rukes in place for use of deadly force.

yea...and you guys are bitching because someone pointed out that yes..there could be a time where it was legal...Somehow the white house saying what you believe =Obama will fly drones around shooting Americans for anything he wants. Because you have to keep up your fight against the Fake Obama who only exists in the some right wing fantasy land.

 

[dogtowner]

yea...and you guys are bitching because someone pointed out that yes..there could be a time where it was legal...Somehow the white house saying what you believe =Obama will fly drones around shooting Americans for anything he wants. Because you have to keep up your fight against the Fake Obama who only exists in the some right wing fantasy land.

ok you have admitted you were wrong by tangent.
Holder says its legal. why did he bother to find this out ? why the tanks, the drones the billions of rounds of ammo ?

 

[PLC1]

What exactly consitutes an "attack" these days? Would a cyber attack that crashes the banking grid count? Do our interests abroad count?

Under Article 1, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President must ask Congress, you are correct. That said, there is nothing else in the Consitution that says how that war must be declared....there are no guidelines for what that legislation must look like.



There was a "declaration of war"....it came via the AUMF in 2001. The Consitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but says nothing about what that legislation must include, what a declaration must look like etc. All it says is that Congress has the power, and via the AUMF in 2001, Congress expressly granted the authorization to use force in a war, thereby "declaring" a state of war.

You can call it a "limited" war, but the simple fact is that it is a Congressional authorized conflict that came about via a Congressional declaration that authorized the use of the force to kill Al Qaeda and its affiliates.



This is a different issue -- but a good question. That said, you will note that in the AUMF, it doesn't authorize the President to fight a "war on terror." It authorizes the President to hunt down and kill Al Qaeda and their affiliates. The AUMF doesn't give the President the authority to just call anyone a terrorist and kill them...it gives him specific authority to target Al Qaeda and their affiliates.

Eliminate Al Qaeda and their splinter groups, and the war would be won.

We killed Bin Laden.

So, the war on terror, i.e., war on Al Qaeda is over. We won. Let's call it and bring the troops home.

 

[PLC1]

Agreed.

And to your question, we will NEVER know when the war on terror is won....much like the war on poverty, war on drugs, etc....

That is why the government and all it's Statists love the war on terror. It allows government to grow and gain more power, while diminishing the rights of the individual.

Yes, that's what the war on terror, war on poverty, and war on drugs are all about: increasing the power of government. It's time we ended all three.

Or, better yet, let's launch a war on common sense.

war on poverty = more poverty
war on drugs = more drugs.
war on terror = more terrorists.

We could actually use a bit more common sense.

 

[BigRob]

We killed Bin Laden.

So, the war on terror, i.e., war on Al Qaeda is over. We won. Let's call it and bring the troops home.

Even if you "brough the troops home", that really has not much to do with drone strikes in Yemen etc.

 

[PLC1]

Even if you "brough the troops home", that really has not much to do with drone strikes in Yemen etc.

True.
but, if the war is over, then there is no need for drone strikes, is there?

No, I think Gipper hit the nail on the head: The war on terror, like the war on drugs and the war on poverty, is about increasing the power of government. Why else would anyone put up with the government having the power to kill with no oversight?

 

[BigRob]

True.
but, if the war is over, then there is no need for drone strikes, is there?

If we have won the war against Al Qaeda and their affiliates, then who exactly is it you assert these drones are targeting? And if they are targeting Al Qaeda and their affiliates, then how can you argue the war is won and over?

No, I think Gipper hit the nail on the head: The war on terror, like the war on drugs and the war on poverty, is about increasing the power of government. Why else would anyone put up with the government having the power to kill with no oversight?

It is not a "war on terror", certain powers have been granted to target certain groups.

 

[dogtowner]

If we have won the war against Al Qaeda and their affiliates, then who exactly is it you assert these drones are targeting? And if they are targeting Al Qaeda and their affiliates, then how can you argue the war is won and over?

Won't be over till the final crusade.

It is not a "war on terror", certain powers have been granted to target certain groups.

terror declared the war and has given no indication it has had enough.