Today's Poll: Should the president be able to order the killing of U.S. citizens who are suspected terrorists?

I'm curious if the 97 people so far who think this is OK, can tell me who decides who is a legitimate threat and why the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution does not apply to this situation.

Just for clarity the 6th Amendment states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Dave, the organizations that today determine who is a legitimate threat will continue to do so. The leaders of those organizations have taken oaths to protect against enemies "foreign and domestic." No issue to me.

Jerry, who are these organizations that OK these assassinations. Because that is what they are - assassinations. In this instance the United States of America is no better than Israel or the other nations who assassinate people.

It is clearly one thing to execute a drone strike against people we are at war with and clearly another to target an American citizen even if he might be what is considered a terrorist.

And that is the real issue, targeting an American citizen. The constitution Must be a priority whn dealing with our citizenry in all circumstances otherwise it is a worthless piece of paper.

To be clear, I am not against drone strikes against terrorist organizations, that is war. I am totally against direct targeting of an American citizen who should be afforded the full weight of the constitution.

The recent issue was would it be legal to kill a US citizen inside the United States if the person was a suspect, but presented no immediate harm to anyone and had not been charged with anything. Obama's AG sent a letter that did not say that was not acceptable or illegal. The AG did say it was not legal, after being asked that direct question 4 times at a hearing. It should not have taken more than once for him to say no.

Dave I know your not gonna like this but anyone who has claimed and put into writing that they are actively surrendering their citizenship, hating on the us, its constitution and its people then back it up with demonstratable actions that they are sincere> I think thats enough to revoke their protections under the US constitution.... Just my basic opinion. So americans outside of the US actively fighting against it...absolutely.

Of course if they are on US soil unless they have fought with authorities in being apprehended then the 6th should still be applied but other than financially supporting groups outside the US its hard to believe that someone renounces their citizenship if they stay and still participate in society, except in extreme cases, this is where the court the do their job.

Jerry the line in the oath reads;

"To defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

I sincerely hope you never do anything to piss off the government, Jerry.

Also, as a veteran, who participated in some pretty ugly bombings, I think about what it would be like for a drone operator who is ordered to strike somewhere, only to find out there was faulty information and innocent people were killed. We as a nation need to stop and look at where we are right now, much less where we are heading, and what we are asking of our military .Drones make war and killing too easy. Of course jerks like Obama and Holder who never wanted to bother with the military, think that shit is OK. Makes me sick. And where are all the civil and human rights lefty democrats on this? If Bush had done this,they'd be screaming. Thank God above for Rand Paul.

The problem with your "scenario" though Howard is that I addressed that... I would still be living in the US therefore still under the 6th amendment. Also this would be happening in a vaccume either, I'm sure they would be tracing my ip address and forensically taking apart my communication devices. Also since I am a lil internet savvy I dont use credit cards that can be used in this way online I use reloadable ones.

The simplification of complex issues also is disingenuous if you read about the American born cleric killed with a drone there was sufficient evidence. Not circumstantial as you posted in your example. Just because the Govt has authorized this type of action overseas doesnt mean it's gonna happen here in the US.

Sometimes you just have to act when you are engaged in conflict.... Besides for all we know the Govt may have been doing this in extreme cases for decades, look at Kennedy, go even further back to President Lincoln, extreme times call for extreme measures I dont think the Govt tells us anything they dont have to and thats the problem they tell us what we want to hear and a majority really dont want to be bothered with details. You think it's better to Send a special forces team, to capture him alive then risk every military person from time of capture to time of trial, then risk the threat in whatever city trial takes place in the reporters reporting on it and the jurors weighing the case and so on? I could go on but I think everyone gets the picture, they are trying to eliminate threats, not increase them and bring them here to us.

Kyle, the constitutional protections of US citizens are not bound by borders. The government of the United States is bound by the constitution to protect our rights as citizens and civil liberties no matter where on the this earth we reside, no matter what we might say, and yes no matter what laws we break.

Without due process, we are nothing

Amen, Mark & Howard

So then define for me what a US citizen is? That definition has been taken from us as well. Seems anyone despite their intentions can come here and claim the rights of citizenship even illegally. We all trust the Govt to a degree.....but what we dont trust is the people in the Govt, Obviously if you read about the muslim born cleric, you will see that he was investigated, according to the media it was REQUESTED that he be placed on that list The characterization that this violated any right he had is superceded by the process that was used, and again Howards simplification of the process was disengenuous to what was involved in approving his being put on the terrorist hit list...

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

I agree that due process is an important right and critical to the enforcement of the US constitution. But if you come home frome work and find that your family is held hostage by a gunman which do you expect the Police to do attempt to negotiate? Or neutralize the threat with force? At what point does your goal go from arresting him and giving him his Due Process to having a swat sniper eliminate the threat. After your wife is killed? after 2 of your 4 children fall? No one would be protesting his lack of Due process after that would they? Yet he is still a citizen, and still entitled to his rights, but his immediate actions removed their implementation didnt they?

?

by the way...article quoted was http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=0

Awlaki was born

Anwar bin Nasser bin Abdulla al-Aulaqi
21 April 1971
Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

He was not a foreign born Muslim cleric, he was an American Born Muslim
cleric and his son was an American Born 16 year old who happened to be at a coffee shop with him at the time of the strike.

Also " People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford. "

So you tell me Kyle, who made the ruling that these guys were considered military enemies and not political enemies? A Court, A Colonel or just a staffer at the white house?

I am not against drone strikes on our enemies, only against drone strikes which violate the law because they lack due process. And completely against drone strikes against our own citizens

See article link posted in comment 17 Mark but make sure to read all of it...

Kyle the National Security council is made up of politicians, political appointees and military officers, it is NOT a court of law nor has it judicial powers.

And that is precisely the point, in our system the military and the government are bound by the rule of law, not an unelected appointed body.

Its ok to fight the Govt on this I'm not saying it isnt but everyone seems to be taking a black and white stance on this. There are no absolutes in life except that it ends. Did we treat Native Americans according to the bill of rights, even though they reside in our borders and should have been covered? During WWII did the japanese americans get treated properly according to the contstitution, how about women before sufferage was passed, how about blacks before civil rights? All were thought ok back then but we know better now. We encouraged the Govt to do so, but like I said everything isnt black and white. So the absolutes everyone uses here seem incredibly blind to me.

I am against drone strikes in public places in general, Mark. The collateral killings that happen are not worth it. This is exactly the type of thing that creates more terrorists. They don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we will blow up their families to get one or two guys. If want to take out a verified (by humanint) site or a vehicle verified to contain terrorists on a road outside of town, fine. But hitting a coffee shop or a residential area, no, never.

Kyle, all those things you mention are pox's on our national history. We should learn from history and continue to be the best America possible. Past mistakes are no excuse for current wrong policies.

Police officers arent a court of law and are bound by the rule of law but as I pointed out. Does the perpetrator get those rights while holding a bunch of kids hostage or is he eliminated to protect those kids. Where's his due process.....wheres the court order for his execution that a jury of his peers decided on. It's not happening at that moment because protecting those innocents superceded his rights.

Kyle the incarceration of Japanese Americans was ruled wrong by the courts albeit years later. Does that make this right? Have two wrongs ever made anything right.

I don't agree with Dave that there is no place for drone strikes, however, consider this, we are not at war with Yemen, in fact the Yemeni government is technically considered a US Ally, so where is the precedent here?

Alwaki was killed, by a US drone strike in a country that we are not at war with, if that is ok, then where do we stop, where do we turn it off.

Drone strikes at the Afgani-Pakastan can be argued are part of the misfortunes of war, but strikes in the mountains of Yemen without a declaration is nothing more than political assignation.

You keep trying to paint shades of grey, but the fact is TARGETED STRIKES against American Citizens is a very black and white issue. If you are a citizen, the government has no, absolutely no business targeting you no matter the circumstance, if he were killed collaterally in a war zone, a much different case, but he wasn't he was Targeted. That is the issue here and the only issue here, no one in government should be allowed to TARGET US citizens, not here, not there not anywhere.

So now you are going to make the imminent threat argument?

Ok, was he holding a Hostage at gun point while sipping coffee with his son? Was he actually in the act of blowing up an embassy while he sipped that Latte?

Even if he was planning it, he wasn't in the act of carrying anything out, which means there was no imminent threat. BY you comparison, a Police officer should be able to shoot a person because he is planning a murder.

We both know that is not the case, imminent threat means in the act of commission, not because someone plans too.

But Dave they hate us because as you said...They don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we will blow up their families to get one or two guys. But we defend ourselves from them cause they will kill planeloads of people, drop buildings filled with innocent people, bomb public places to make political statements and make the public turn on their Govt. They use these excuses then hide behind their families depending on our unwillingness so as we try to find ways to win without compromising our morals we should just allow the slaughter to go on?

Dave we are not at war with Yemen, there should be no strikes there period

No, not at all Kyle. But as Mark asks have 2 wrongs ever made a right? We can hunt these people down, we can defend our nation without targeting people in countries we are not at war with and we can do it without shredding our Constitution. It would help a lot if we'd just stop getting involved in other countries affairs as well. Pre-emptive strikes have far too much chance of error.

Ok Mark so it is ok to let him continue to recruit and plan and wait til he is in the act.....Where seconds may count for hundreds of innocents.... Ok thats a reasonable expectation.

international and political definition of imminent threat...an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future.”

Legal definition in US... Some laws allow use of deadly force when imminent danger is present. Typical considerations to find imminent danger include the attacker’s apparent intent to cause great bodily injury or death, the device used by the attacker to cause great bodily injury or death, and the attacker’s opportunity and ability to use the means to cause great bodily injury of death.

Start clicking the down arrow right now; I do not care. Fighting terrorists is a messy game that cannot wait for formal declaration of war or lengthy legal processes. A citizen from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq, or America that advocates to use terror to damage/destroy our country and its people is an ememy. You all can leg wrestle over the constitutionality; I do not care. I will continue to support those that hunt down enemies of America--therefore our Constitution--foreign or domestic.

You know what Kyle, rather cut and paste deadly force definitions, perhaps, and only a suggestion, look up imminent. Just sayin

You are truly the stuff actions movies are made of Jerry

Now that I can agree with Dave We need to step out of being a world police force and start taking care of home first. We have been doing it so long now that things are going to hell here while we try to improve things for others. Haiti relief was so quick and large and thats fine but why wasnt it nearly as quick or large for Sandy, or Katrina? Is it nobel or stupid to assist to the point that you put yourself in need?

As for the two wrongs dont make a right. well thats ambiguous at best and really depends on the situation.... heres my example for that:

He states that if something supposedly held up as a moral standard or common social rule is violated enough in society, then an individual or group within society can break that standard or rule as well since this keeps them from being unfairly disadvantaged. As well, in specific circumstances violations of social rules can be defensible if done as direct responses to other violations. For example, Kavka states that it is wrong to deprive someone of their property but it is right to take property back from a criminal who takes another's property in the first place. He also states that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an excuse recklessly to violate ethical rules.[1]

That was under imminent Mark.....not deadly force. But please no distractions now you said....

Even if he was planning it, he wasn't in the act of carrying anything out, which means there was no imminent threat

yet the definition states....international and political definition of imminent threat...an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), AND HAS OR WILL HAVE THE MEANS TO DO SO IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

I am more in despair that some rail the constitution without really understanding it

Its not anything new Howard......if you recall.. during prohibition most people and a significant part of the govt were very willing to defy the constitution because they thought it was wrong. Just this year Gov Cuomo has decided to ignore the constitution as well. Its been happening since it was put to paper. It'll never be completely meaningless but I'll be the first to admit that it is in danger. I just spoke up today over the generalization and continuance of the opinion that because this American Born Muslim cleric was eliminated in such a way, that now the Govt is gonna go overboard and do it to every american citizen. Its obvious the decision wasnt made lightly nor implemented lightly either but now the insinuation by sensationalist media is that the Govt can do this to all of us. It aint gonna happen just like Gov. Cuomo's safe act is gonna get ripped to shreds by the courts for the same reasons.

You wanna define rail there Mark cause your grasp of it doesnt seem to be 100% either

By your definition Kyle, a State Trooper that knows that you have a shotgun, and knows that want to kill your neighbor has the right to shoot you you even if your are not lifting the weapon or for that matter even have it in your hand.

The laws that the NSC are trying to use to justify such strikes are meant for combat situations, on a battlefield. People get too caught up, way too caught up in the emotion of events to weight the consequence at times.

The IMMEDIATE means right now, within moments not days weeks or months, but I digress, to me it is said, very sad that at any point any American seeks to justify what amounts to the assassination of another American without due process.

You can cut and paste, twist and turn any political statement, or simple definition that you want. the moment that the constitution takes second seat to vengeance and anger, we as a nation are doomed. And there is nothing that rips at the core of the constitution more, than a government official elected or otherwise being free to target an American anywhere in the world because they deem him a threat without the due process of law

You do amuse me so young man

Boy Howard,,, you really shook that tree!!

"If you give up your rights now, don't expect to get them back."
Senator Rand Paul, March 6, 2013

Howard, don't despair. We now have a Constitutional professor as President and he assured us via this clip how he will honor and respect it.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/185105/18-of-21-a-president-who-believes…
Oh wait, that's right, this guy HAS been President for the last 4+ years and has already disenfranchised us a nation from our founding principles more than all previous Presidents combined.
How can we be surprised at ANY of this? We knew who he was in 2008, we knew even more who he was in 2012 and yet 65 million educated Americans can't be wrong can they?
How much more injecting of the by-product of combustion into our backsides do we need before we realize that we have been duped by the greatest snake oil salesman of all time?

I find it ironic that McCain scurried Paul for violating Senate rules when he led the charge against enhanced interrogation.

I agree with you Howard, this isn't at all about party, it is totally about constitution

Aha but there again is an apples to oranges comparison. Here in the US on US soil if he doesnt see the shotgun in my hand or another weapon and uses deadly force. Then he has broken the law.

He was a homegrown enemy combatant he left this country and joined the enemy to wage war the constitution did not take a second seat to vegence and anger. It took a second seat to protecting the rest of the citizens of this country from becoming victims.

Howard, I never mentioned party because I agree, it is not a partisan issue, it is a leadership issue. The buck stops with the President...period. It is a standard every other President has had to govern by and an oath they take to uphold... until this one. He leads from behind, he ignores the Constitution, he is reckless and continues on that path because an apathetic electorate lives and feeds off sound bites. It is not that a Democrat is eroding our foundations, it is not that a black man is undermining our principles, it that our President is reshaping the way America does business both domestic and abroad, and it is not the America our founding fathers envisioned.

Here is a link to a Memo by the Justice Department obtained by NBC news two weeks ago. It is among several others that were used by the Justice Department to justify Targeting Americans. Some interesting highlights;

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”
the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

But people should take time to read the entire 16 pages

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper…

The criteria throughout is nothing less than vaque, While it does mention the 5th Amendment, it presupposes that "Officials" are empowered to make judicial findings defining eligibilityto get on a kill list.

Radical Muslims have ordered death to America, what comes around goes around.

Thats where you are wrong Mark. I read your article as it was posted if thats wht you want to go with, great. Did you happen to see WHOM empowered officials with the ability to make judicial finding and take action on US Citizens involved with an active enemy of the US?

1st Clue.....the white paper cited is from DOJ, thats the Dept of Justice.
2nd clue.....The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion); id. at 587, 597 (Thomas, J., dissenting); Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Like the imposition of military detention, the use of lethal force against such enemy forces is an "important incident of war." Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518 (plurality opinion) (quotation omitted). See, e.g., General Orders No. 100: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field ¶ 15 (Apr. 24, 1863) ("[military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies") (emphasis omitted); International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II) § 4789 (1987) ("Those who belong to armed forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time."); Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict 94 (2004) ("When a person takes up arms or merely dons a uniform as a member of the armed forces, he automatically exposes himself to enemy attack."). Accordingly, the Department does not believe that U.S. citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces from a use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF or in national self-defense

This is the JUDICAL BRANCH of our Govt giving the opinion, that seems to take the wind out of your Officials making the decisions argument as they have been givien that power by THE SUPREME COURT of the US.

Unlike your interpretation if you do ACTUALLY read it (and it is mind numbingly lon and drawn out) It is not vague at all. It states that there are circumstances that allow for actions by our govt of this nature it lays out where and when and even how they may be carried out and why they arent covered by Pres Ford's executive order on govt sanctioned assassination.

Their Reasoning? Well here ya go...

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself. The defensive options available to the United States may be reduced or eliminated if al-Qa'ida operatives disappear and cannot be found when the time of their attack approaches. Consequently, with respect to al-Qa'ida leaders who are continually planning attacks, the United States is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans in a manner that has both a high likelihood of success and sufficiently reduces the probabilities of civilian casualties. See Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17. Yale J. Int'l L. 609, 648 (1992). Furthermore, a "terrorist 'war' does not consist of a massive attack across an international border, nor does it consist of one isolated incident that occurs and is then past. It is a drawn out, patient, sporadic pattern of attacks. It is very difficult to know when or where the next incident will occur." Gregory M. Travalio, Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force, 18 Wis. Int'l L.J. 145, 173 (2000); see also Testimony of Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, 660 Hansard. H.L. (April 21, 2004) 370 (U.K.), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040421/tex… (what constitutes an imminent threat "will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats .... It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack."). Delaying action against individuals continually planning to kill Americans until some theoretical end stage of the planning for a particular plot would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.

YOU can twist things as well to fit your beliefs Mark but the truth lies right in the middle....

Yes he was entitled to his rights as a citizen by birth of our Nation, but his actions and intent threw these rights out the window. He reaped the rewards of his choices. I cant believe anyone can support someone acting as an enemy of the state, moving out of the country to help conduct operations against the population, but still think they should be allowed to excercise the very principals they are willing to slaughter innocent american civilians over. That just doesnt make sense to me.

Kyle,

I am not wrong, the memo used supreme court rulings in an attempt to justify the action. Footnotes do not make justification in them selves, especially when the cases cited dealt specifically with the battlefield.

I probably knew that the DOJ was the Department of justice before you were born so spare me your attempt at a gotcha moment.

Nowhere in the 16 pages did it state that the Supreme Court would decide, in fact nowhere in the article did it specify who would decide by name or title.

And finally, I did read it days before this poll in it's entirety, and I read it without looking to corroborate my opinion, apparently unlike you.

There is no justification for the government depriving a US citizen of his or her rights, mass murder or not. Without due process of law.

I might submit to you that you are twisting the words to justify your position much in the way you accuse me of.

EDIT: BTW The quoted text and comment in my post was pulled from the NBC law correspondent that reviewed the memo, not me

"Jeff, Obama=Bush; Bush=Obama."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Not because I am a Bush fan, nor because I dislike Obama, it is because the entire landscape of Presidential accountability has changed and Obama is taking full advantage of it. Bush was not only held accountable but completely excoriated for his actions. Obama gets pass after pass as he grabs more and more power and grows the institution of government by and for the people into an all encompassing tyranny. If it weren't for Rand Paul who took 13 hours just to get a yes or no answer to a fundamental Constitutional question which should have been an easy answer, we would be further down the road to losing what is left of our basic protections.

"Nobody loses their rights without due process of the law."

Howard, if that's the case and a Drone makes an attack and kills someone, where did the due process of the law happen?