The Constitution, he said, “guarantees due process, not judicial process.”
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Constitution, he said, “guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

  1. #1

    The Constitution, he said, “guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

    I can't disagree that these guys are probably bad and deserve what they got, but where will this administration draw the line. Cross Pres. O and you might find yourself in the cross-hairs.

    Obama administration offers new defense for killing U.S. citizens - Defense -

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    SE Florida
    This is one (I believe the only one) thing that I agree with BO and Eric Holder on. If you're gonna be an active participant in a war against this country, be it through recruiting, training, etc., then you've got a bullseye on you as far as I'm matter what passport you carry.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  4. #3
    There was never an issue with killing US citizens who joined enemy forces. Look at all the US citizens that joined the German, Italian, and Japanese forces during WW2.

    Lots of Brits joined NAZI units as well. They were very quickly executed if not killed on the battlefield.

    This really is nothing new.


  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    "The attorney general said such strikes would only be carried out if three conditions were met. First, Holder said that the executive branch has to have determined that the U.S. citizen 'poses an imminent threat of violent attack' against the U.S. Second, it has to involve a situation where it’s not 'feasible' to capture the militant alive. Finally, the strike has to cause only minimal collateral damage and 'use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.'”

    He missed the two conditions I think are most important. A) The American citizen must be off US soil. If he is on US soil, then he is protected by the Constitution and should be taken into custody and put on trial, modulo Holder's second point above. B) The American citizen must be on a field of battle. Of course the field of battle in the War on Terror is a rather fluid concept, but I think being in the Middle East is sufficient to satisfy both my A and B.

    By Holder's description, an American dissident on vacay in Cabo could be targetted with a drone strike if the Executive decides that Holder's criteria holds. Of course, there are no terrorist operations going on in Cabo, so that would violate my condition B.

    Holder's description also does not preclude drone strikes against American terrorists on American soil. That coupled with their paranoia over the "Sovereign Citizen" phenomenon is more than enough to convince me that this administration would have absolutely no compunction against a drone strike against an American dissident in their own home on American soil. Especially against a "gun nut" who these Leftist Elitists could easily conflate into satisfying Holder's first and second conditions, which are the only conditions which describe the target in this administration's opinion.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts