Beginning of the end of due process?

[normiss 420]

Drone strikes on US citizens in country???????

We should be afraid.

[riddler 0]

We needed to be afraid when Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law. Complete circumvention of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments. Too late to change it, everyone was more concerned about keeping their jobs, and now we're stuck with an end to personal freedom from government tyranny. All in the name of fear of terrorism.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 2]

Quote

Drone strikes on US citizens in country???????

We should be afraid.

No. This policy is for US citizens turned terrorist and living in other countries not friendly to the US where it makes no sense whatsoever to endanger the lives of US troops to attempt to capture them.

I have NO problem with this policy. As far as I'm concerned, you give up your rights the moment you leave the country AND align yourself with terrorists bent on killing Americans. Fuck those guys.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[muff528 3]

Quote

Drone strikes on US citizens in country???????

We should be afraid.

I, for one, support our overlords.

[loch1957 0]

“The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”

Quote from the article. How can anyone not have a problem with this? It would be different if the person was convicted or if they just had proof.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[normiss 420]

This is the same government that knew with no evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq?

[normiss 420]

That's my problem with it.

No proof required to kill your own citizens.

We're such an advanced nation.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

This is the same government that knew with no evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq?

I know Americans have like a 2 day political memory, but really? Obama was in charge when the whole Iraq fiasco happened?

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

This is _far_ _far_ far_ from the beginning. Drone strikes are just a matter of degree.

1. Civil asset forfeiture with its lesser standards of guilt (preponderance of evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt) and entitlement to representation (not there because it's not a criminal matter) has been used with excuses of organized crime and the war on some drugs for decades.

2. US citizens arrested on US soil have already been held as enemy combatants and tortured following 9/11/2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29

[kawisixer01 0]

Quote

Quote

This is the same government that knew with no evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq?

I know Americans have like a 2 day political memory, but really? Obama was in charge when the whole Iraq fiasco happened?

This isn't about Obama, it isn't about Bush...it's about every president we've had for the last 20 or so odd years who have progressively deteriorated our rights and us sheep citizens who have sat back and watched, pointing our fingers at partisan bull shit while blind to the fact that it's obviously not a partisan problem, as our two parties have become two of same flavor. The same sheep people scream "the govt must do something!" well they are, I hope your very small fake sense of security is worth the huge personal freedoms and liberty you have traded for it. In the end the terrorists have won. They sought out to negatively impact our lives and end our freedom loving flag waving way of life. The funny part is they don't have to spend a dollar to do it, don't have to invade us...just have to do something scary enough every couple years to feed our fear and make us call for our govt to do something.....and they do, exactly what the terrorists want done to us.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

This is _far_ _far_ far_ from the beginning. Drone strikes are just a matter of degree.

I agree. The protections of due process have been being eroded for quite some time and nobody seems to be paying attention (or they just don't care).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[blueblur 0]

Quote

Quote

Drone strikes on US citizens in country???????

We should be afraid.

No. This policy is for US citizens turned terrorist and living in other countries not friendly to the US where it makes no sense whatsoever to endanger the lives of US troops to attempt to capture them.

I have NO problem with this policy. As far as I'm concerned, you give up your rights the moment you leave the country AND align yourself with terrorists bent on killing Americans. Fuck those guys.

Show me where exactly it says specifically "living in other countries not friendly to the US"! There is no language specifically or ambiguously detailing where these attacks can or cannot occur. Also, the "associated force" is very UNCLEAR as to what or who they can attack and afterwards label a terrorist.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[brenthutch 356]

"A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S...."

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states. Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.” "

Wow, I will bet that the code pink guys will just go ape shit when they hear about the imperial over reach of the Obama administration. KILLING Americans with no evidence, no charges, no due process, and no limits with regards to borders?!?! Lets get the ACLU involved and start the impeachment proceedings. After all if poring some water on someones face is a war crime, surely murdering a US citizen with no charges, or due process must be.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/...ite&preview=true

[ManagingPrime 0]

Chill Winston!

This is nothing new. Delta force was killing americans, in america, back in 94...now we've just got nifty drones.

Nothing to see here. Carry on.

[normiss 420]

Since the US invaded Iraq partly due to the government killing their own citizens, can we hope for a UN backed invasion of the US when the killings start?

[Andy9o8 0]

I've been mulling both sides of the issue since yesterday afternoon before commenting.

I understand the argument in favor of it, in very narrow circumstances. This is not solely "war-context rules of engagement", nor is it solely one of "probable cause and judicial due process"; nor is there a distinct line between the two; it's more of a "grey zone" that overlaps both.

But on balance, I'll weigh in against it, because the range of permissible facts needed to trigger such action can potentially be so vague. We have to look at this long-term: quite simply, I think there's too much potential for future abuse over the long run, giving the US the excuse to declare its dissident citizens "enemies of the state" and trump-up justifications to summarily execute them offshore. (Or is "offshore" even required?) There are other countries that do this already, and we Westerners recoil in revulsion at it. As well we should; we "Western" nations are supposed to be better than that.

This isn't what our World War II veterans suffered and died to preserve and protect. Let's not roll them in their graves.

[regulator 0]

Great post

+1

[kallend 1,340]

Quote

“The condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”

Quote from the article. How can anyone not have a problem with this? It would be different if the person was convicted or if they just had proof.

US routinely kills its own citizens without due process. The FBI killed a guy in Alabama just yesterday.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lurch 0]

Due process has been a corrupted sick joke in this country since prosecutors came up with the cute little tactic of hitting a defendant with multiple made-up bullshit charges just to make sure the defendant can't win and gives up without a fight or pleads out.

Its been a sick joke since defending yourself in court became so insanely expensive that it costs more than a month in an Intensive Care Unit and even if you win, you lose, and may spend more on your own defense than the resulting fines from being found guilty.

Its been a sick joke ever since laws started being made to serve the interests of insurance companies and corporate campaign contributors instead of the people the politicians were elected to represent...
I could go on...
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[brenthutch 356]

"no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities"

Turning the burden of proof on its ear. A suspect, who may not even know they are a suspect, must prove they are no longer doing something that they have never been accused of.

The question remains, is blowing up a US citizen without due process, better or worse that capturing someone and splashing some water in their nose?

[lawrocket 3]

Wow! So they’ve set up a general rule. All they need is: (1) An informed high-level official of the US government to determine that a targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against US interests; (2) a determination that capture isn’t feasible; and (3) the operation is conducted under the laws of war (necessity, distinction, proportionality and humanity).

Doesn’t that make everyone feel better? It would take someone like Dick Cheney in the last admin deciding that a person is an imminent threat of violence against US interests, it wouldn’t be right to capture him (courts shouldn’t be involved, anyway) and he’ll never see it coming.

We should all feel much better now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 1,719]

When I heard the words "broadly defined" this morning, I figured that pretty much automatically made me against it.

"Narrowly defined" is much better for something like this. Just because the guy is a real destructive asshole doesn't mean that he should be taken out without due process, and without anyone taking responsibility.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 278]

Quote

Just because the guy is a real destructive asshole doesn't mean that he should be taken out without due process, and without anyone taking responsibility.

Open question to anybody who cares to venture an answer: what would constitute "due process"? Imagine, for example, a US citizen who is known (based on solid intelligence) to be 1) training agents to carry out a biological warfare attack on the US, 2) is operating a facility to provide would-be attackers with biological warfare agents, and 3) is doing so from a country that will not permit US troops on their territory under any circumstances.

One option might be to allow the fellow to continue to operate, and hope to be able to intercept every single agent before they are able to reach their target and release their biological weapon. If a few slip through here and there, each one launching an anthrax attack on a major city, well that wouldn't be as bad as the alternative (targeting the facility for destruction without due process).

Another might be to invade the country, fight past that country's military, and hope to reach the installation and somehow find all the people still there to be potentially captured. Basically, launch Afghanistan II, then Afghanistan III, IV, V, whatever it takes, regardless of the number of soldiers killed and $trillions spent, until the guy is caught or killed by conventional forces?

Or use drones to destroy the facility and the capability to launch attacks on the US?

What actions would be permissible, other than sparing no expense/number of troops killed to capture the guy alive, read him his Miranda rights, etc? What actual course of action would you guys order, if you were President, to replace the current policy?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 976]

Quote

No proof required to kill your own citizens.

We're such an advanced nation.

Well, hang on a minute: does that mean it's more advanced to only kill other nation's citizens without evidence that they're planning to attack you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?