Rand Paul- Show Us the Drone Memos

WASHINGTON — I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate. I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

But President Obama is seeking to do just that. He has nominated David J. Barron, a Harvard law professor and a former acting assistant attorney general, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

While he was an official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barron wrote at least two legal memos justifying the execution without a trial of an American citizen abroad. Now Mr. Obama is refusing to share that legal argument with the American people.

source

I am surprised this has not made it to the board yet. This is quite a serious debate that needs to be addressed.

On one hand, we all know that the government (most countries) have assassins. Their job is to kill whomever they are told to kill. If we don't know about it, then nothing is ever mentioned.

But in this case, there is a paper trail, and a very serious constitutional issue. If a US citizen is marked for death, then there should be a fair trial. It shouldn't be up to any one many or even small group.

How can this be allowed to continue?

(please note, that while I don't like Obama, this isn't really only him, this issue could be the same under any leadership)

To take the life of an American without a Trial is very scary stuff.

Those people were in Yemen. It was possible to just arrest them.

The kids that were killed even makes it more disturbing.

I think it violates the Constitution. Nothing new for our recent leaders.

Who's next?

a reply to: network dude
"I'm good at killing people." - BHO

Good on Senator Paul for applying the appropriate pressure on "Soebarka" he never rests creating his "kill list of Americans" just ask Joseph Farah (WorldNewsDaily) who recently discovered himself on the list.

Not watching your six might be last mistake...

a reply to: network dude

As a society, it's very urgent to address this issue now, before the oligarchy starts droning people on US soil.

That's where this train is headed people and with the executions by cop becoming routine, machines killing in the process of apprehending "suspects" isn't a stretch.

Try to stay away from bad politics if you will. Actually try to stay away from politics at all. They'll still force you to absorb what they want you to...

There is a part of me that understands the eliminating a bad person who needed killing. But my reasons may not be right, or whomever is making the kill decision. I think that's exactly why due process exists. If we circumvent it for swiftness, or any other reason, we are going against the very values we claim to hold that set us apart.

When it's put up against the oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, I just don't see any grey area. And again, I don't consider this a partisan issue, or an Obama thing, as I believe it's happened under many presidents. This administration just doesn't seem to care about public opinion much.

double post.
Sorry, it went off while I was cleaning it.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
To take the life of an American without a Trial is very scary stuff.

Those people were in Yemen. It was possible to just arrest them.

The kids that were killed even makes it more disturbing.

I think it violates the Constitution. Nothing new for our recent leaders.

Who's next?

Sad. We entered Orwell's world in 2001-2. War is Peace. Torture is accepted. It will not end anytime soon. Wasnt the ban on assassination lifted with the last two decades? Until Google's robot army and AI take over, but we have a few years before that.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Until Google's robot army and AI take over, but we have a few years before that.

At this moment, that sounds like a joke. I will have to re-visit the humor in that after some time has passed.

Guilty until proven innocent , it seems that's where we are headed...

Makes me sick...

To me this is much more than just "Can you justify killing an American citizen abroad without due process?"

Instead, it is much more a question of Rules Of Engagement.

Even if someone has been labeled an "terrorist" (which - btw - exactly how was that done? He was accused of something and this was proven in a court of law......right? oh wait..........), the problem we have is that now, "terrorist" means "combatant" now.

When I was in the Navy, the ROE for the US was quite clear on many levels: a person with a weapon meaning you harm could be considered a "combatant", and you had every right to defend yourself. Yes, that means even a little old lady with a butcher knife. Of course, using a .50 cal machine gun against her would be a bit over the top.

However, now that anyone labeled a "terrorist" is now considered a "combatant"........it blurs the lines, no mater what citizen someone is.

Even if the drone attack could somehow be justified (and the above is how it is being justified).........why a drone? Look at the collateral damage (sorry...let me put it bluntly: innocent people killed, including children). Is that also justified?

No. It isn't.

Not when the same job could have been done with a sniper rifle.

Even then........that is murder. Does not matter how much evidence someone might have. Due process is Due process.

Even Nazi war criminals were given a trial.

So yes, I'm upset that due process was not followed. Even if he wasn't an American, he is a human being.....and so were all those around him that were killed too.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: the owlbear
Until Google's robot army and AI take over, but we have a few years before that.

At this moment, that sounds like a joke. I will have to re-visit the humor in that after some time has passed.

Half joking, but curious indeed and cautionary.

I'm not scared of the military equipment we know about. Seems like drones are easy enough to jam and bring down. Im frightened by what we dont know they have.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
To take the life of an American without a Trial is very scary stuff.

That is a heavy statement, if you think of it in different context. Or are an NRA member.

originally posted by: Shakawkaw

originally posted by: whyamIhere
To take the life of an American without a Trial is very scary stuff.

That is a heavy statement, if you think of it in different context. Or are an NRA member.

I don't know what you mean? I don't belong to the NRA.

My thoughts are in context of the United States Constitution.

The guy was in Yemen with his son...we knew exactly where they were.

I realize the guy was a scumbag terrorist.

But, under our Constitution. Even a scumbag terrorist American Citizen has Rights.

originally posted by: Shakawkaw
That is a heavy statement, if you think of it in different context. Or are an NRA member.

What does that mean?

a reply to: whyamIhere
Maybe the NRA statement was too general, I apologize. The statement just struck me funny with the "self defense" shootings we have had recently. Though that's not the topic so ill shut it lol.

I bet U.S mercenaries (orginised terriorisim ) are excluded from the "bombing" list .....

And other orginizations i am sure, so basically they want the right to bomb anyone who is "suspected " to be a terriorist ....

Really disgusting ....

I dont' know - if a US citizen serves in the military of another country and actively takes up arms against the US then soldiers have the right to kill that person under "normal rules of engagement" on a battlefield - no trial required.

In this case the "scumbag terrorist" was a self declared enemy of the USA, actively and voluntarily fighting an armed conflict against het USA. Not as an easily identified member of an armed for to be sure.......but in practical terms just how different should this be?

And his son - well that's tough shirt IMO - scumbag chose to put his son in harms way deliberately, and if scumbags can successfully use their kids as human shields then you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.

Sure there are constitutional issues - but there are also practical ones.

I also note that since Yemen is not the USA in fact the US has no ability to arrest him at all - they could kidnap him of course - is that acceptable??

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I dont' know - if a US citizen serves in the military of another country and actively takes up arms against the US then soldiers have the right to kill that person under "normal rules of engagement" on a battlefield - no trial required.

In this case the "scumbag terrorist" was a self declared enemy of the USA, actively and voluntarily fighting an armed conflict against het USA. Not as an easily identified member of an armed for to be sure.......but in practical terms just how different should this be?

And his son - well that's tough shirt IMO - scumbag chose to put his son in harms way deliberately, and if scumbags can successfully use their kids as human shields then you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.

Sure there are constitutional issues - but there are also practical ones.

I also note that since Yemen is not the USA in fact the US has no ability to arrest him at all - they could kidnap him of course - is that acceptable??

Did the scumbag have a weapon in his hand and attacking someone at the time he was killed?

It does make all the difference.

US solders fighting an enemy that is shooting back at them. Yes, that is understandable.

However, when said enemy puts their weapons down, raises their hands and surrenders.....but are then gunned down by said US solders....no. That's murder, and is against the ROE (or at least it used to be that way).

This all smacks of "Look, we could not get you playing by the rules. So we're going to break the rules, and we don't care who is in the way and gets killed too."

Does that not bring us down to the very same level of terrorism that we are suppose to be fighting?

When does killing children....because they were in the way.....become acceptable?

It should never be acceptable.

Yet sadly it is something that has been done for as long as humans have been around.

In this day and age.....the 21st century.....with all our education, intelligence and ability to communicate with anyone in the world instantly.........we should not be acting like barbarians.

But sadly, we do.

If you kill somebody without a trial, then you should be put on trial to justify your actions. If it is deemed a lawful use of force like a self-defense situation or in the act of war then you are still a free man. If the target wasn't engaged in war then it is a crime.

Everybody is guaranteed a right to a fair trial in our country.