Of Predator Drones and Due Process...

 
« Previous story
Next story »
 
Of Predator Drones and Due Process...

Was the attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan justified under US and International Law?

Just to give a basic framework of the discussion, the Palm Beach Post lays it out rather nicely:

The killing of the U.S.-born Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki on Friday along with another U.S. citizen and two other Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen is likely to fuel the international controversy over the legality and wisdom of the Obama administration's dramatically increased use of drone attacks.

For several years, U.S. allies have made no public comment, even as U.S. drone strikes have killed twice as many suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban members than were ever imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. But that acquiescence may change, as human rights groups and the media debate the legality and collateral damage of drone attacks. The U.S. drone program has been highly effective in killing senior Al-Qaeda leaders, but the administration needs to better explain and defend its use of drones to avoid losing international support and potentially exposing administration officials to legal liability

The U.S. position, under the Bush and Obama administrations, has been that drone strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are permitted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, which empowered the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations, organizations or persons who planned, committed or aided the Sept. 11 attacks. The United States also believes that drone strikes are permitted under international law and the United Nations Charter as actions in self-defense, with or without the consent of the country where the strike takes place.

It’s perhaps easiest to start with the people who think that it was not justified, which seems to range across the political spectrum, but noticeably more present at the far peripheries.  From the far left, it is customary for me to start with Glenn Greenwald of Salon…

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.  Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed. 

Meanwhile from the right we have Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Herman Cain representing the libertarian and conservative wings.  First, Ron Paul:

"No, I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said in a videotape of the questioning by reporters. Awlaki “was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the ‘underwear bomber.’ But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it's sad.”…

“I think, what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly had done it,” Paul said. McVeigh “was put through the courts then executed. … To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this.”

Paul argued that the killing of Awlaki was different from the attack on Bin Laden because Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

 Frankly, the Ron Paul logic on this one escapes me entirely.    How is it different?  Bin Ladin was never put on trial either, so was it just that 9/11 changes it?  And who exactly makes the decision as to whether one event is strong enough to overcome the need for a trial, and another is not.  I’d like to give the Dr., the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was misquoted, and/or there was something else he said to bolster this line of thinking, but I have been looking for two days and found nothing.

Meanwhile, Hermann Cain is being no less difficult to pin down on this one.  On May 5 of this year, Cain said

"He should be charged. And since he's an American citizen, he should be tried in our courts," Cain said of al-Awlaki. When asked if he considered it legal for President Obama to order al-Awlaki killed, Cain said, "In his case, no, because he's an American citizen."

 

This week, somewhat inexplicably, he stated:

“I never said that [President Obama] should not have ordered [the killing]. I don’t recall saying that. I think you’ve got some misinformation," Cain said. "Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there trying to make me sound as if I am indecisive."

“I don’t know all of the compelling evidence that the intelligence agencies and the military had. I’m convinced—I’m convinced that they have enough intelligence information that said he’s a threat to the United States of America,” Cain said. “You don’t try to prosecute or capture him simply because he’s a United States citizen.”

Unfortunately, we don’t have a particularly clear-cut explanation of the legal thinking of the White House, as the memo that was drafted is secret….

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

 

The closest that we have to a legal reasoning is a speech by John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism before the Program on Law and Security at the Harvard Law School:

 

In the face of this ongoing and evolving threat, the Obama Administration has worked to establish a counterterrorism framework that has been effective in enhancing the security of our nation.  This framework is guided by several core principles.

First, our highest priority is – and always will be – the safety and security of the American people.  As President Obama has said, we have no greater responsibility as a government.

Second, we will use every lawful tool and authority at our disposal.  No single agency or department has sole responsibility for this fight because no single department or agency possesses all the capabilities needed for this fight. 

Third, we are pragmatic, not rigid or ideological – making decisions not based on preconceived notions about which action seems “stronger,” but based on what will actually enhance the security of this country and the safety of the American people.  We address each threat and each circumstance in a way that best serves our national security interests, which includes building partnerships with countries around the world.

Fourth—and the principle that guides all our actions, foreign and domestic—we will uphold the core values that define us as Americans, and that includes adhering to the rule of law.  And when I say “all our actions,” that includes covert actions, which we undertake under the authorities provided to us by Congress.  President Obama has directed that all our actions—even when conducted out of public view—remain consistent with our laws and values.

 

Now, I don’t really see much of a legal argument per se in there, but everyone else is pointing to this speech as the justification.  So, in the meantime, I guess we just have to guess as to what it is, and try to find a way to differentiate the Greenwald/Paul/Cain reasoning from that of the White House. 

Either way, what do you guys think?  Was the strike legally justifiable or not?

 

UPDATE:  This article in Military.com today gives me a little more to go on....

A secret panel of mid-level national security officials has been established that can put American citizens on a “kill or capture” list that is ultimately sent to the White House for final approval.

The panel’s recommendations first go through a group of National Security Council “principals” – meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence chiefs – for approval before reaching the president’s desk, according to a report today by Reuter’s.

There is no public record of the panel’s workings and no law actually establishing it or spelling out its functions.

 

I don't know if that makes me more or less apprehensive about this.  Is Congress cool with the President making this quasi-Judicial body without any legislative input? 

If anyone is reading an inherent bias on my part in the preceding, I'd love to know what that bias is, because I honestly have no clue how I feel about this whole thing.  I feel uncomfortable with secret bodies not authorized by legislation authorizing things like killings.  On the other hand, Awlaki needed to be ventilated and good riddance to bad rubbish.  But, we should always think worst case scenario with these sorts of things.  Can you envision a scenario where a US Citizen is killed abroad with a drone attack, and he didn't have what was coming to him?  Probably we all can.  So, what safeguard is there?  That's where I get somewhat lost. 

Update X2: The family of Samir Khan issued this press release today:

We, the family of Samir Khan, in our time of grief and mourning, request that the media let us have our peace and privacy during this difficult time.

It has been stated in the media that Samir was not the target of the attack; however no U.S. official has contacted us with any news about the recovery of our son’s remains, nor offered us any condolences.

As a result, we feel appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government.

Being a law-abiding citizen of the United States, our late son Samir Khan never broke any law and was never implicated of any crime. The Fifth Amendment states that no citizen shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' yet our government assassinated two of its citizens.

Was this style of execution the only solution? Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?

Where is the justice? As we mourn our son, we must ask these questions.

Sincerely,

The Khan Family.

I find that mildly ridiculous, because one of the last things Samir wrote was an article in the Al Qaeda Magazine entitled "I am proud be a traitor to America." So, he was a law-abiding self-professed traitor? Something doesn't add up there wouldn't you say?

 

My Friends at My Pet Jawa are also decidedly unpleased, and included this picture of Sami's article...

Posted in the burner | 356 comments
 
« Previous story
Next story »

 

* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.

Comments

No person who is a traitor to his/her country has any rights. When the president was sworn in, he/she
promised to uphold the Constitution, and protect the American people against all domestic, and foreign enemies. No traitor has a right for a trial, and when they are caught, they should be killed immediately. Their are people in the world, and in our own back yard, who want these traitors tried in court. What happens when they get jail time, then get released, and do it again..don't you think that we have had enough of this! How many more of our children, mothers, and fathers have to die, because we Americans want to be, what you call, "civilized"..too hell with that-Hang them!

I think some people are missing the point of this post, so let me ask this question:

Are you comfortable with this President, or the last President, or any other President uniliaterally deciding who is or is not a traitor?  Obviously these two clowns were.  But, if a future President were to decide that the TEA Party, or the "Occupy WallStreet" people are traitors, would you be comfortable with bombing them if they were in another country talking badly about our country or the President?

What I was asking in this post was not about these specific guys, but rather the law, which looks at all possible permutations.

I don't care if he was an American! He became an enemy of state when he joined the terrorist. As a highly decorated Marine once said,"the person who asked that question must have a septic tank on his shoulders." I agree and put the person asking this question in the same category! Bleeding hearts and Monday morning quarter backs make me want to puke in disgust! Who the hell believes that this scumbag deserves a courtroom? They innocent victims of 9-11 were not given a courtroom! They died as a result of sick twisted ideologies that perverted the Muslim Religion for their own agenda. Commit an act of terrorism against America and you will have a Hellfire missile up your ass, or better yet Seal Team 6 showing up at your house at 3:00 A.M. They won't be there as the welcome wagon to the neighborhood!!!

Predator was the "process he was due"!

Awhile back, 35 years ago plus, I took an Oath to Defend the United States of America, My Country/ Our Country, Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.... I do believe, that I should never do or think otherwise....if anyone truely commits a crime against or incites actions against or assists in any action against the United States of America They should be dealt with by any means or methods the Powers To Be deem necessary....this is what we fight for in the Millitary and as Ex- Millitary, if there is such a thing, should continue to Uphold and teach our Children to do the same... The Punishment shoul be equal to the Crime... We must protect All We Have and never drop Our guard....Trust but Verify.... MGB

If any terrorist is active in destroying the life or liberty of a U.S. citizen, they need to die. It does not matter about a terrorists citizenship as they chose to destroy Americans. The terrorist (Lindh) should have been executed as a traitor whick is a capital offense. The same goes for Jane Fonda.

If you take residence and serve in a foreign land you give up U.S. citizenship. Therefore you give up any constitutional protections.

These slimy cruds think they're going to use our legal system to get their message out! The hell with that: shoot now and axe questions later. That's the only language they understand. It's a shame for the family, but this slimeball left them out to dry with his actions! Drone 'em into oblivion!

That is one on the problems that many Americans do not understand. WAR IS WAR!!! The enemy is whomever is fighting us or threatening to. I served in the Marine Corps for many, many yrs. I know, as my comrade Marines know, this is the way you handle the enemy.

THE PEOPLE HAVE WAGED WAR ON THIS COUNTRY AND SHOULD BE KILLED AS ANY OTHER MILITARY THAT WAGES WAR ON THIS COUNTRY. PULL OUR TROOPS OUT AND DECLARE TO ALL THAT TRY AGGRESSION TOWARD THIS COUNTRY WILL BE MET WITH SUPERIOR FORCES TO ELIMINATE- FOR EVER- ANY FURTHER AGGRESSION. THESES IDIOTS MAY NOT MIND DYING BUT WHEN WE HAVE TO START KILLING THERE FAMILIES THAT MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AFTER ALL THEY WANT TO KILL OUR FAMILIES. USE DRONE'S SPECIAL FORCES, ROBOTS IF NEEDED BUT JUST DO IT AND SOON....BRING OUR TROOPS HOME AND OUT OF HARMS WAY .......

I have served in the military during wartime... the president did his job by killing the enemy. If you have not done your duty to your counyty by serving in our military, Sit down shup up, you have not earned the right to critisise....PS he should have taken out some republicansy

If Americans were at peace with the rest of the world, providing due process of law would be simpler. Unfortunately, whether declared or not, we are at war with people who follow no rules of engagement. Everyone is at risk, just about everywhere in the world. While this is for the most part low level, it is still war, in my opinion. A different set of rules applies when we are at war - declared or not. I don't like it, but I accept it.

If Americans were at peace with the rest of the world, providing due process of law would be simpler. Unfortunately, whether declared or not, we are at war with people who follow no rules of engagement. Everyone is at risk, just about everywhere in the world. While this is for the most part low level, it is still war, in my opinion. A different set of rules applies when we are at war - declared or not. I don't like it, but I accept it.

Cut and dry, no lib bull s--- needed. All Military and even our so called Prez. Zero take an oath to protect the Consitution of the United States from all enemies both forgein and domestic. This piece of human waste was an enemy ot the U.S. and he should have been blown to hell just like he got.

First, we need to decide if we are 'At War'. If so, consider if this or any man would have been a high level aid to Hitler; Would he be intitled to a trial during 'war time', even if he were a US citizen. Enemies are ememies during a war, regardless of past citizenship.
I am not at all in favor of wars, but if you've got to have 'em, You do whatever you need to in order to win. How many innocent US citizens were killed in the bombings of Japan in 1945? We did it to win the war.

Dam straight. This guy was an enemy of this country who was hidding like the rat he was.
If you have to go under a rock to get him so be it.
All rats and scum hide, it just so happens
our mouse trap is a drone and rats don't like it.
To bad.
Have a great day.

Vietnam ushered in the war powers act by which a President could take necessary action to protect US citizens ETC ETC. annnd I agree with that but these undeclared Wars the drag on and on with out a declarationof purpose or mission to me are unconctitutional and illegal. Let the President set a policy of M.A.D. against these people who advocate violence against the US and it's friends hit them with SHOCK AND AWE and have congress approve it and I'm good. 58,000 died in Vietnam and troops are still in South Koreaand because of the lack ofprocess no one knows why. Want your don/daughter to die and no one knows why. If radical Muslims want violence give them violence, but lets decide what that means.

The bible is the standard that we should apply. It very clearly states that people are known by their deeds. This "American Citizen" has all kinds of clear documentation, including his own words that clearly show his allegiance is to a foreign government and ideology that would be to the destruction of his native country. The decision to kill him was obvious and correct.

I see no problem with killing this AH. If there is a problem then it would be that they missed Hanoi Jane.

I don't care where in the world they are, even the USA. If they are planning attacks against our country, I say let the military blow them up before they achieve their objective. If they are plotting against us that makes them traitors and in a time of war traitors are given the death penalty. So, blow them up wherever they're at!

Did or Did Not the US declare WAR on Terrorism. If so, then any attack on a Terrorist cell, sympathizer, enabler, or cleric who supports al-Queda or the Taliban is fair game in any and all cases.
Why the hell support anyone who professes to want to destroy American and our military men and women. I am retired Air Force and Vietnam Vet, but like the Marines so aptly put it, "Kill them all, let Allah separate them.......

I say that wife have a chance to take out these terrorists we need to do so then and there. They wouldn't give any of us any legal rights before they assasinate us as they have demonstrated in the past. If an American wants to participate with the terrorists then he/she takes that upon themselves and they will suffer the consequences. By joining their ranks they are no better than they are. Our country needs to stand firm and defend itself as quickly as possible. We DO NOT need to tie things up in a court of law looking for justice.

Since they were American born, I think every effort should have been make to capture them, instead of kill them. If we had the info on where they were, why not send a team in to capture them, ans d use the drone to keep track of them until the capture is made. If the present Administrarion is going to read rights to foreign born terrorists, thet should do the same to American born terrorists.

We are at war and I'm not sure how we would try all enemies before shooting them. The people who died on 9-11 didn't get a trial and I'm certain that the enemy did not care about that. Let's be reasonable here. These people were traitors to our country and got what they deserved. Worry about our young men and women in harms way and not about trash like this.

Not only is it the right course of action but the process should be expanded. Maybe we should bring charges against all the suspected US citizens gone crazy. Charge them in abstentia. If guilty, revoke their citizenship.
Obama didn't make this decision alone. He had plenty of help with the background. He was the only candidate in 008 that said he would go into a country with or without their support to take out a high value terrorist. And he backed this up by doing exactly that. For any Republican candidate like Ron Paul, he wouldn't say anything good about Obama regardless of what he did. Old Ron typifies what is wrong in politics today. His goal is to find fault where there is no fault just to press his agenda. He is useless and so is Cain. The sooner they stop getting any press the better for the Republican party.

This man was a sworn enemy known for violent actions against the people of the United States, and you want to give him "What"? Is there any wonder we're in the mess we're in?

When you become an enemy of the state you lose all rights as someone Who was born here in the U.S., if they don't want to become a target of our drones then give yourself up and stand trial for crimes against the state. The more we allow them to kill our people and we do nothing in response the more they will do it. When they realize that we will stand up and bring JUSTICE to them maybe then they will think twice.
It comes down to one important thing that we MUST all remember-
"United We Stand.. Divided We Will Fall" we must all stand and tell them.. If you target our people you lose all rights and we will come get you no matter where you are and the people hiding you will also become a enemy if the state. I wonder for all the people yelling about their rights I wonder if it was your child they killed would you still feel the same? Say what you will.. But God knows the truth.
If you target the people of the U.S. You lose all rights even if you were born here.. You are a enemy of the state and we will find you! Just ask Bin Laden, we will never stop coming for you!

As I former Marine and a Liberal as far left as The Democratic Party will allow without expulsion, I applaud these killings of American Citizens who are avowed enemies of our country. Do we not remember the old west days of posters that declared 'Wanted. Dead or Alive.' These people were enemies of this country and I shed no tears as to how they were executed. Semper Fi and more power to the drones and the administration that gave them the order to kill.

I have no problem with the strike. Any American citizen freely waives his constitutional rights when he actively engages in hostilities against the United States, publicly assumes responsibility for those actions, and then repeatedly engages in active hostile acts. Traitorous behavior aside, an analogy would be a corporate employee who throws his computer and file cabinet out the window, walks out of the office, and starts his first day working for the competition. He is not subject to a bad performance report from his previous supervisor. He waived his fifth by bragging about it, he waived his fourth by not surrendering. This is war, not embezzlement. He got what he deserved. We took an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic. It is ludicrous to expect reading Miranda rights to anyone on the battlefield; but I would gladly pay airfare for anyone who wants to go over there waving a Miranda card, who wants to try an enemy in court.

Perhaps to appease our constitutional conscience we might consider trying individuals known to be avowed traitors ,clearly plotting terrorist attacks and taking credit for such "in absentia"
It is hard to stand by and allow any individual to launch attacks against your fellow countrymen or for that matter in such a way as to kill innocent bystanders ,women and children in an area you occupy in a war zone. Such acts are just plain murder and of themselves downright not only violate international but moral law as well.
Those who declare themselves at war with us and commit acts of violence against us , our allies and innocents must realize their acts warrant consequences . They have denied others their rights and in effect forfeit their own.
Were we justified ? Only God knows . It seems that we might reason that denying such an individual due process was not desired nor even his death,but saving the lives of his potential victims was the desired outcome.. Those who lives were saved by this act,if they were aware of such,would most likely think someone made the right decision.
Unfortunately, terrorism, it seems, makes war a greater hell than it already is and makes us participate in actions we would have rather solved another way.

The use of drones, particularly in the take-down of Awlaki, was a righteous kill. He turned traitor against his country of birth. He called for a deathly jihad against Americans anywhere. The acts of terrorists represents warfare on a much different level. Militant jihadists have declared war on America and any county who allies with us in this struggle.

When ANY LIVING BEING decides to support, or become a member of any group whose mission it is to commit acts of mayhem and/or war against the people of the United States they become my enemy, and the enemy of my country. As an American, and a US Marine Corps Veteran I reserve the right to, with great prejudice, take whatever action necessary to neutralize the threat which that individual or group presents to the welfare of myself, my family, and my fellow citizens. I also support the taking of a human life by the US Government, without "due process" if the government has a reasonable cause to believe that a US citizen is engaged in what is commonly considered to be acts of war against the USA. I firmly believe that whenever a person freely offers comfort and support to an enemy of the citizens of the USA they choose to become an enemy, and choose to void any claim of the rights of US. Citizenship. Conclusion: All enemies either foreign or domestic, DUST EM! Semper Fidelis

The guy deserved what he got coming to him for turning his back on the U.S. and what we stand for

OK, let me look at this from the liberal, leftist point of view: I decide to go be a jihadi , and I go over there. I wind up on a battlefield, and shoot some American soldiers. (That's assuming I can't con some dumb bastard to do my fighting for me by promising him 6 dozen virgins) Then I set up a website, to recruit American Muslims, to come join me. I help set up some operations, which kill more Americans, and not only brag about it, but make myself a public figure. What to do about me? Simple. The US sends somebody over to arrest me, read me my rights, provide transportation back to the US, put me in jail with three hots and a cot, furnish me with at least one lawyer, prefereably a team, and then I get a long trial, several appeals, (all the while residing in a prison where I get my preference of meals, recreation, Monday night football, maybe even conjugal visits if I claim it as a religious rite), and probably die of old age before my (maybe) execution. ........Nah, just drop an airstrike on the bastard. Saves time.

The media and the human rights groups whine and cry about the brutality of the U.S. Troops and the U.S. airstrikes. They talk about how this is illegal and that is illegal. Where is their outcry and protest when the terrorists behead American citizens. Any American that joins a groups that commits act of terror and war against the U.S. should be considered traitors and be treated as such. If they hate the U.S. so much, they should leave our great Country and NEVER come back. They love the freedoms our Country offers them but they hate our Country. IF YOU DON"T LIKE AMERICA, GET OUT AND DON'T EVER COME BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not sure about the so-called "warr." If our brave Congressman had the intestinal fortititude to actually issue a declaration of war before they spent the lives of some many of our young men and women I would be in stronger support. Don't get me wrong, the bastard needed to die. Treason, even if it was not covered under the strict definintion of the Constitution of the United States that we have all sworn to uphold and protect against all enemies foreign, and domestic, I won't shed a tear.
I will shed one or two about a nation that thinks that is is okay for the executive branch to kill and spend our lives without Congressional approval (in the form of a formal Declaration of War as required by the Constitution). Where is the American Legion's support of the Constitution? Are we so blinded by our own blood lust that we won't constrain our government? Should we not require a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution that we swore to uphold, before we allow any administration to spend the sacred lives of our brothers and sisters for a mission that has no true definition.

I for one am tired of seeing our troops being buried and none of our elected representatives willing to take the responsibility by issuing a declaration of war and then getting the damn job done. We whipped the Nazis and Imperial Japan (some of the toughest folk on the planet) in less time. What are we doing.

The target in question, who was once a US citizen, gave up that when he took sides with terrorists. It was proven he masterminded attacks on US entities. Glad we didn't waste millions on a trial, only a few thousand for a job well done by the Drone people. Keep up the good work

Sure it was justified, they were enemy combatents. It is ironic though that Administration that went on and on about waterboarding, which caused to long term harm does not waterboard they just vaporize them.

I am all for killing terrorists with any method our armed forces can use. Killing them might save the lives of our service men and women. I care less it the terrorist is a US citizen. I consider the terrorist a coward. I do not consider a terrorist any better than a rabid animal and should be killed before he kills any of my family or countrymen.

It was justified, because war is war and war is hell ! The other side doesn't care what means
they use.

I definitely think that the drone strike that killed this scumbag was more than justified, even if it was somewhat impersonal. Just to see his beady eyes look all around as he stepped out his door right before the .408 Intervention shot blew the back of his head loose would have been so much more satisfying.

All that aside, provided that the Yemeni government gave the nod, the strike was the right way to go.

YOUR METHODS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE ECNOMICAL WITH THE .408 ( PERSONALLY, THE .243 IS MY MEASUREING INSTRUMENT ) , SO, LOCKHEED, WORKS AND THE REST OF THE NATION COMMENTS ABOUT IT ..

Is the result of the use of a drone significantly different than the use of disguised suicide bombers and IED with far less arbitrary targets. I certainly support the use of the drone in this situation which is in keeping with U.S. war policies.

War is hell. They shouldn't have started it, he shouldn't have "defected", but we'll end it.

US Army Veteran, He was a traitor simple as that. I wish I was the one that took him out.

I agree with the removal of this guy because he ceased to be a US citizen when he started helping the enemy plan strickes against the United States and its citizens. He was a traitor to the US and deserved the death penalty. Yes to him being put on the kill or capture list,

When anyone makes the choice to harm the USA, they automatically choose to accept the consequences.

Where in the constitution does it state that we believe only Americans have rights? I thought we believed that all people have the rights, and were fighting to allow them the ability to exercise those rights. Or perhaps some people really do believe that some are more equal than others?

I now see that Major General Smedley Butler, USMC was correct. War is a racket!

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

In my opinion, Both individuals were guilty of treason based upon their Spoken and/or written words.. Should they have been tried in a Court of law? Sure. But does anyone honestly think that it would ever happen. They spread their treasonous thoughts on the internet and TV for all to see. They betrayed this nation to give aide and confort to the enemy. 'nough said.

Pages

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.