Since the definition of imminent threat was changed to continued 'plotting'.
It is all about the due process required PRIOR to removing an inalienable right (namely LIFE) of US citizens that are not directly engaged in an illegal activity though they may be plotting one. This equates to summary executions of US Citizens by the Executive.
Using the new definition, Obama could execute Tea Party or NRA members who actively plot to overthrow Obama UNLESS some good men stopped him BECAUSE the laws clearly in this cause are not stopping him.
In summary, to answer your question with a question regarding limited government and the rule of law -by what logic do you argue the U.S. Government can arbitrarily kill U.S. Citizens that may have committed a crime but have never been found guilty of such AND at the time they are killed are not an immediate threat warranting self defense -let alone the fact that ONLY the drone is in danger during the supposed 'war effort"? US citizens placed on a kill list and targeted without due process is not an America I want to live in. Regarding US Citizens I could MAYBE buy into using drones to execute death sentences resulting from some form of due process or even using drones in self defensive measures on a battle field as a means of saving lives on that battlefield; HOWEVER, neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.
He was an admitted member of al queda. Why do you feel sorry for dead terrorists?
[Quote]
By what logic do you argue the U.S. Government cannot wage war upon and kill U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant actions against tthe U.S. Government and/or its foreign allies?
Since the definition of imminent threat was changed to continued ‘plotting’.
It is all about the due process required PRIOR to removing an inalienable right (namely LIFE) of US citizens that are not directly engaged in an illegal activity though they may be plotting one. This equates to summary executions of US Citizens by the Executive.
[Unquote]
You are falsely claiming the U.S. Citizens under discussion were “ not directly engaged in an illegal activity” despite the fact they had associated themselves with an organization engaged in warfare in direct violation of the laws of war and the laws of nations, who in past years and millenia authorized the immediate enslavement or execution upon sight or capture by any person, military or civilian. Pirates, brigands, and persons engaging in combat without a commission of the sovereign power were subject to the penalty of death without due process by anyone and anywhere. Nowadays, the legal profession has severely reigned in such practices sometimes and in some places, yet the law and principle still exists, especially in combat situations. Arguing due process becomes ludicrous in most combat situations, as the right of a law enforcement officer or a citizen to commit lawful homicide without due process under exigent circumstances of imminent threat which you allude to. Combat and certain types of intelligence activities involving the risks of personal combat and combat intelligence are likewise circumstances where due process is not reasonable or required by law and where the writ of habeus corpus does not and should not exist as a right because of the inappropriate consequences.
[Quote]
Using the new definition, Obama could execute Tea Party or NRA members who actively plot to overthrow Obama UNLESS some good men stopped him BECAUSE the laws clearly in this cause are not stopping him.
[Unquote]
The Obama Administration does not have the lawful right to so target the members of the TEA Party under such legislation, but that does not mean he would not abuse the interpretation of the law to do so or has already done so in some covert actions. The Obama Administration and prior Presidents have always had the Constitutional power to suspend habeus corpus with the consent of Congress, and they have actually done so on a number of occasions. What should be dome about this power to suspend the writ of habeus corpus and/or suspension of due process is another question pending since the Constitution was adopted. Before answring the question, however, a peerson has to be careful not to invalidate the inalienable rights of citizens nor unnecessarily deny the military to effectively perform its mission to protect and defend those Constitutional rights and freedoms against foreign and domestic enemies who would destroy them while abusing the Constitutional protections.
[Qutoe]
In summary, to answer your question with a question regarding limited government and the rule of law -by what logic do you argue the U.S. Government can arbitrarily kill U.S. Citizens that may have committed a crime but have never been found guilty of such AND at the time they are killed are not an immediate threat warranting self defense -let alone the fact that ONLY the drone is in danger during the supposed ‘war effort”? US citizens placed on a kill list and targeted without due process is not an America I want to live in. Regarding US Citizens I could MAYBE buy into using drones to execute death sentences resulting from some form of due process or even using drones in self defensive measures on a battle field as a means of saving lives on that battlefield; HOWEVER, neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.
[Unquote]
You are wrong in saying “neither of those scenarios is what is being discussed.” On the contrary, such attacks are being discussed, and they cannot be arbitrary by definition, since they are targeted as you have observed. Neither are the attacks entirely without due process. The attacks are subject to due process determinations of compliance with the Constitution’s enumerated Power for Congress to define the rules and laws for piracy and the Law of Nations for example. The legal compliance for due process under those laws and the Uniform Code for Military Justice are quite different from domestic civilian legal codes, and for good reasons not to be trifled with without very good cause to do so. It may very well be a need for improvements in due process to military law, the Laws of War, and the Law of Nations to prevent dictatorial abuses; yet the current laws do in fact provide some due process despite any impressions you find to the contrary. Consequently, your argument serves as a non-existant strawman argument and not the actual circumstances which exist.