Drone Strikes--Legal, Ethical, and Wise?

[Roger Plafkin]

If drone strikes are legal, ethical, and wise against American Citizens without a trial and proof of some kind of behavior which is detrimental to the United States, or puts this country in jeopardy, then the next step is a concentration camp and gas chambers for all who disagree with governmental policies. Adolph Hitler got his start by people willing to overlook the subjugation of their neighbors, their rights taken away, and eventually their neighbors shipped off to who knows where for extermination; to kill someone who grew up in this country without due process, is going not only against the "Ten Commandments", but everything that this country was founded upon to protect.

Roger Plafkin-Plafkin Brothers-Plafkin Farms, Ada, Michigan

[Pall Harvey]

Roger Plafkin wrote:

If drone strikes are legal, ethical, and wise against American Citizens without a trial and proof of some kind of behavior which is detrimental to the United States, or puts this country in jeopardy, then the next step is a concentration camp and gas chambers for all who disagree with governmental policies. Adolph Hitler got his start by people willing to overlook the subjugation of their neighbors, their rights taken away, and eventually their neighbors shipped off to who knows where for extermination; to kill someone who grew up in this country without due process, is going not only against the "Ten Commandments", but everything that this country was founded upon to protect.
Roger Plafkin-Plafkin Brothers-Plafkin Farms, Ada, Michigan

As always Roger - you are right on. Have you ever considered running for public office?

[Mark Luxford]

This morning I started a 4 week class on "Hot Topics In Constitutional Law" at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Aquinas College presented by Devin Schindler, a Constitutional Law professor at the Cooley Law School in Grand Rapids. He started the class by talking about this issue. Schindler pointed out that terrorism has started a whole new body of law because neither the criminal law nor military law are suitable for dealing with terrorism.

He also said that the Obama administration justified their use of drones to attack American citizens who had joined terrorist organizations was by redefining the word "imminent". It's an established legal principle that the use of lethal force is justified if you believe you are in imminent danger of being attacked. The Obama administration redefined imminent from the criminal justice definition of being about to happen to a belief that the person in question, being a terrorist, can be expected to launch or take part in a terrorist attack against America in the future. They used this self-defense ressoning to justify their use of drones in this way.

Keep in mind, the Bush administration re-defined torture to justify waterboarding. If that was OK for him to do in his efforts to protect us from future terrorist attacks, why is Obama wrong for using drones to attack American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations? He's also using his authority as Commander-in-Chief to do what he believes is necessary to protect us from future terrorist attacks.

[Eddie]

Mark Luxford wrote:

This morning I started a 4 week class on "Hot Topics In Constitutional Law" at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Aquinas College presented by Devin Schindler, a Constitutional Law professor at the Cooley Law School in Grand Rapids. He started the class by talking about this issue. Schindler pointed out that terrorism has started a whole new body of law because neither the criminal law nor military law are suitable for dealing with terrorism.
He also said that the Obama administration justified their use of drones to attack American citizens who had joined terrorist organizations was by redefining the word "imminent". It's an established legal principle that the use of lethal force is justified if you believe you are in imminent danger of being attacked. The Obama administration redefined imminent from the criminal justice definition of being about to happen to a belief that the person in question, being a terrorist, can be expected to launch or take part in a terrorist attack against America in the future. They used this self-defense ressoning to justify their use of drones in this way.
Keep in mind, the Bush administration re-defined torture to justify waterboarding. If that was OK for him to do in his efforts to protect us from future terrorist attacks, why is Obama wrong for using drones to attack American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations? He's also using his authority as Commander-in-Chief to do what he believes is necessary to protect us from future terrorist attacks.

Obama uses his authority as Commander in Chief as a matter of convenience. Basically he's a self serving egotistical weenie who couldn't hold down a job in the real world if it weren't for affirmative action. I know I wouldn't hire him to spread manure on my farm - even though that does seem to be the one thing he's adept at.

[Really]

Waaa waaaa waaaa, Bush did it first! The whiny excuse for the 5th year in a row!

[1960brookwood]

Eddie wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama uses his authority as Commander in Chief as a matter of convenience. Basically he's a self serving egotistical weenie who couldn't hold down a job in the real world if it weren't for affirmative action. I know I wouldn't hire him to spread manure on my farm - even though that does seem to be the one thing he's adept at.

He would seem to be better choice than the stuttering idiot that was running the show before him--MR "The war is over" circa 2003

The guy that attacked Iraq after 15 Saudi citizens --a friendly nation--took down the twin towers?

[Really]

Where is all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over these drones being used to kill Americans? The outcry from the left over the Patriot Act (which Obama renewed) was long, loud, and continues to this day (only blaming Bush, of course). Yet, not a sound from the constitutional "experts" on these forums. Interesting Op-Ed from Judge Andrew Napolitano today on FoxNews.com . Yes, I know it's Fox News, but it's worth the read since the judge is an actual Constitutional law expert. Not a pretend like the administration.

[Bob]

Really wrote:

Where is all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over these drones being used to kill Americans? The outcry from the left over the Patriot Act (which Obama renewed) was long, loud, and continues to this day (only blaming Bush, of course). Yet, not a sound from the constitutional "experts" on these forums. Interesting Op-Ed from Judge Andrew Napolitano today on FoxNews.com . Yes, I know it's Fox News, but it's worth the read since the judge is an actual Constitutional law expert. Not a pretend like the administration.

Your current howls of protest would come off as more genuine if they didn't just begin 4 years ago!

[St Stephen]

If they are 'over there' conducting training or plotting against US citizens then, IMO, they have decided to forfeit their American rights and that includes a right to trial.

As far as drones go? I see no difference between a drone or an AH-64 Apache. The drone is much cheaper and doesn't have a family with kids back in the States.

[Mark Luxford]

Eddie wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama uses his authority as Commander in Chief as a matter of convenience. Basically he's a self serving egotistical weenie who couldn't hold down a job in the real world if it weren't for affirmative action. I know I wouldn't hire him to spread manure on my farm - even though that does seem to be the one thing he's adept at.

Nice...you ignored all my questions and points and instead launched into a diatribe against Obama.

[Mark Luxford]

Really wrote:

Where is all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over these drones being used to kill Americans? The outcry from the left over the Patriot Act (which Obama renewed) was long, loud, and continues to this day (only blaming Bush, of course). Yet, not a sound from the constitutional "experts" on these forums. Interesting Op-Ed from Judge Andrew Napolitano today on FoxNews.com . Yes, I know it's Fox News, but it's worth the read since the judge is an actual Constitutional law expert. Not a pretend like the administration.

You're forgetting one little word, "terrorist". It's interesting how you righties were so opposed to Obama closing Gitmo and trying terror suspects in our courts, yet so concerned for the rights of Americans who join terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and plan attacks on our country.

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Your current howls of protest would come off as more genuine if they didn't just begin 4 years ago!

As always, your MBA is working for you......

[Really]

Mark Luxford wrote:

<quoted text>
You're forgetting one little word, "terrorist". It's interesting how you righties were so opposed to Obama closing Gitmo and trying terror suspects in our courts, yet so concerned for the rights of Americans who join terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and plan attacks on our country.

Do you have proof that said citizens have reneged on their citizenship? Otherwise, it is US citizens he his murdering at will. Odd how the progressives and left were screaming and carrying on about actual terrorists being tortured for information, but now that it's American citizens being murdered, all is fine. This begs the question: Did the progressives actually care about the terrorists or was their weeping and wailing because it was a Republican president? I'm guessing it is the 2nd one since the progressives don't honestly care about American citizens being murdered.

[vox veritatis]

St Stephen wrote:

If they are 'over there' conducting training or plotting against US citizens then, IMO, they have decided to forfeit their American rights and that includes a right to trial.

SO why is it, then, that terrorists who aren't American citizens have a right to a trial while American citizens can be assassinated at will? Why can't the government summarily execute every terrorist held at Guantanamo if our own citizens are subject to such a fate for being members of Al Quaida whether they're taken part in an attack against America or not...it's just assumed that at some point in the future they will?
Why is it that the left screamed and cried when the Bush administration declared operations against Al Qaida as 'war' but embrace the notion enthusiastically when the Obama adminstration decides to use the same rationale?

[Bob]

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:

<quoted text>As always, your MBA is working for you......

Yup, that it is.

Did your home school teacher ever explain to you about the use of deadly force? Military and civilian police forces have had the right to kill certain citizens for years if they thought that the person's escape MAY present a danger to others in the future.

Not much difference here other than the fact of who authorized it.

[St Stephen]

vox veritatis wrote:

<quoted text>
SO why is it, then, that terrorists who aren't American citizens have a right to a trial while American citizens can be assassinated at will? Why can't the government summarily execute every terrorist held at Guantanamo if our own citizens are subject to such a fate for being members of Al Quaida whether they're taken part in an attack against America or not...it's just assumed that at some point in the future they will?
Why is it that the left screamed and cried when the Bush administration declared operations against Al Qaida as 'war' but embrace the notion enthusiastically when the Obama adminstration decides to use the same rationale?

Really? Why is it when you people say:'it's OK for Obama but you screamed when Bush did it'--you are alway wrong or misrepresenting the facts?

1). They cannot execute everyone at Guantanamo because being at Guantanamo they are no longer a threat.

2). I don't remember the 'left' screaming and crying when Bush declared war on al Qaida, in fact I remember we pulled together as a country and welcomed dropping the hammer on those responsible for 9/11. It was when Bush declared war on Sadam Husain that he lost the left (and any other American with a brain).

[WDRussell]

If we could get people to quit talking politics, we could work together to end these drone attacks.

[vox veritatis]

St Stephen wrote:

2). I don't remember the 'left' screaming and crying when Bush declared war on al Qaida

Not surprising: Pot will do that to you and progressives already have very short (and selective) memories.

[Dr X]

Everyone please read this.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/arti...

I hope this guy is wrong.

[St Stephen]

vox veritatis wrote:

<quoted text>
Not surprising: Pot will do that to you and progressives already have very short (and selective) memories.

When the F were dems upset that Bush decided to go after al Qaeda or the Taliban????

That whole pot thing is a deflection because the left NEVER was upset that Bush decided to start bombing Afghanistan and taking out al Qaeda. Oct 2001, Bush starts removing al Qaeda and Taliban insurgants in Afghanistan and the whole f'ing country was behind him.

Please...tell me when the left was so upset. I need examples because I am a lefty and a lot of my friends lean left and I know not one person who was against Bush going after those who attacked us on 9/11. Not one. So unless you have some kind of outside, secret knowledge on the subject I'm calling it what it is. Bullsht and I call you a bullshtter.