You still didn't answer my question. Your cousin and husband could still find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the government intelligence agencies don't even know who all the terrorists are and where they are, with all their resources, how can it be assumed that an American citizen will have that information? And that they will always know with whom they are fraternizing?
It's amazing to me that the constitution is the law and gospel...until it isn't.
I just don't believe a drone is going to explode on the home without the covert operative using surveillance to follow the guy. The operative is going to need to know who is involved, how many people are involved, where would other cells be located, where are the weapons being picked up and dropped off, etc., etc.
They are eventually going to pull the guy aside and find out what he is doing. If they can't get close enough, the guy is too close to the terrorists.
thus my issues with Obama's approach. Congress should clarify. Obama's team should be transparant.
That being said, anyone who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies which would be the case where an American has become a top Al Qaida leader, then i want law that says blow that guy up. Im not real interested in "due process".
I can promise you in WW2 we didnt get all hand ringie over some American helping the germans. we just would have found him and put a bullet hole in him.
I just don't believe a drone is going to explode on the home without the covert operative using surveillance to follow the guy. The operative is going to need to know who is involved, how many people are involved, where would other cells be located, where are the weapons being picked up and dropped off, etc., etc.
They are eventually going to pull the guy aside and find out what he is doing. If they can't get close enough, the guy is too close to the terrorists.
E.g., the Constitution is just a piece of paper when someone decides it needs to override it in the name of the greater good.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
E.g., the Constitution is just a piece of paper when someone decides it needs to override it in the name of the greater good.
Follow the logical steps regarding this person. It is too easy to get information. The government has all of your information. If he is hanging out with terrorists, kick him in the other knee.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton says President Obama's drone program "appears to be consistent with the policies of the Bush administration."
"If you assess the threat of international terrorism to be the equivalent of war, then you're in the 'law of war' paradigm. This is not like robbing the local 7-Eleven, where you resort to the law enforcement paradigm," said Bolton, who added that Article II of the Constitution gives this power to the president in a time of war.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton says President Obama's drone program "appears to be consistent with the policies of the Bush administration."
"If you assess the threat of international terrorism to be the equivalent of war, then you're in the 'law of war' paradigm. This is not like robbing the local 7-Eleven, where you resort to the law enforcement paradigm," said Bolton, who added that Article II of the Constitution gives this power to the president in a time of war.
Im with Bolton. My issues with this are
1. lack of transparancy. They need to be more open about this.
2. Not engaging congress. Congress has a role here
3. Lack of clarity. They need to more tightly define when where and what. NOT on American soil. Someone who is actively involved with a known and published terrorist organization. Do that more clearly and I have no other issues.
I can say, that in every case that we know of where an American has been killed with a drone, it was a righteous kill
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I'm with Bolton. My issues with this are:
1. lack of transparency. They need to be more open about this.
2. Not engaging congress. Congress has a role here
3. Lack of clarity. They need to more tightly define when where and what. NOT on American soil. Someone who is actively involved with a known and published terrorist organization. Do that more clearly and I have no other issues.
I can say, that in every case that we know of where an American has been killed with a drone, it was a righteous kill
A US citizen joins a terrorist group whose objectives are to kill Americans.
Why wouldn't he be subject to the same rules of engagement.
To me the opposite would be hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Today's activist is tomorrow's terrorist.
This is a shame and part of a mindset that was codified with the passing of the Patriot Act.
The problem I have is one person, the President, is calling all the shots of who is considered a threat to be killed and who isn't. THAT is extremely disconcerting.
How soon until the NRA is labeled a terrorist organization? Don't laugh. Charles Schumer and other senators are already laying the groundwork, calling the NRA an "extreme fringe group."
And sure, Anwar al-Awlaki was likely a terrorist and committing treason, but his 16-year old son Abdulrahman wasn't. Neither were the friends he was hanging out with when the US drone blew them to bits.
Even if al-Awlaki was a terrorist and committed treason -- the constitution still afford him due process as a citizen. Pardon the french, it absolutely sucks for me to want to protect his due process rights as a citizen. But then again, I also would protect the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist Church, as bad and evil as they are.
The folks here saying it should be ok to blow citizens away without any due process or proof of treason, thus abolishing the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, should be a bit more concerned that one person, the President, has destroyed 4 amendments and is flirting with the 1st, 2nd and 4th (though the 4th has been destroyed with warrantless wiretaps and electronic monitoring). The reason I mention flirting with the 1st is hate/bullying legislation will soon make it a crime to tweet, post a status/article, deliver a speech/sermon or otherwise speak out against a certain lifestyle. It will happen. And the reason the Bill of Rights will be completely destroyed, will be because we were willing to allow the 5th-8th to be bypassed in the name of national security and the war on terror.
Linear Mode
