I Don't Know
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Right here they are telling us this is the next generation of surveillance with the use of drones. Moreover consider how may have already been over American cities and took a snapshot already.
Now Again I think there has to be some sort of responsibility for whatever Senior Official makes the call. Because which Dept would it fall under? If an American they would need to have some sort of evidence that they are connected to a terrorist group and not due to one pitchin a bitch and protesting what an Adminstration does. There cannot be vague language when to concerns Americans Citizens and their Rights. Regardless of what International law is.
Also lets not forget that the UN is and has been investigating the US over the use of drones and the collateral damaged caused. Pakistan which threw up the photos of the lil kids that were killed, as well as others when within the vicinity of drone strikes.
But why would there be a Need to set up some sort of New System? Shouldn't we be able to delegate this to a Court system we have now?
How about we just stop killing people and focus on addressing the things that make terrorists angry with us, like meddling in their countries and the poverty that most of those nations live with? That's how we'll build a safer world, not atop a pile of corpses.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Well Texas as a State has filed legislation now.....Fisher Already showed us the City in Virginia. Which the video already showed one city they took pictures of in Virginia.
Texas would have the toughest anti-drone legislation in the country under a bill filed by State Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Terrell).
1200 WOAI's Michael Board reports that Gooden has introduced a measure which would outlaw the use of drones by individuals, or state or federal law enforcement.
Read more: Texas "Anti Drone" Laws Would be Toughest in USA - NewsRadio 1200 WOAI, San Antonio
I may not fully understand your system of government, but wouldn't any congressional restrictions place on the President in the conduct of war be unconstitutional - and if the drone strikes are not part of a war effort, wouldn't the killing of Americans via drones be unconstitutional and perhaps murder?
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”
Here was the wording.....
It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
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.”
As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.....snip~
This is what the arguments are over for killing an American. Again it isn't just about the President making the call. Any Senior Official, and this is despite the dramatic increase in use of drone attacks. As well as what department and what Official has such an authority.
This does not count any International Law nor any Foreign Complicity. Do we really need to set up some sort of Special Court System like Feinstein and some other Democrats are proposing. If the House and Senate Intel Committees can hold hearings and conduct an investigation. What need is there for a Special Court System.
The one thing I see with the hearings.....when bringing someone forth for questioning. Is the Hiding behind the Words of National Security. First if one is being called to testify. Then there has been some sort of screw up in the first place. So IMO there should be no EXCUSE to be used with the rational. Meaning such cannot be used to ignore questioning or to avoid answering.