Should the President be able to drone strikes on Americans in the USA

There is a filabuster now in the Senate to oppose a bill that would give the president, AG and Military the authority to administratively and secretly order drone strikes and assasinations against Americans on USA soil.

Obviously, a person has to support the death sentence to support this. But they also have to support setting aside due process of law and creating a Presidency and federal administrative government that has the full and secret power to order any American assasinated at any time.

Between the power Congress already gave to the White to indefinitely and secretly imprison an American without trial and now the ability to summarily and secretly assasinate, including by drone strikes, Americans in the United States would be essentially ordering perpetual martial law of the harshest form.

Would you have wanted Nixon to have that power? What about the next President after Obama? Or Obama himself?

I think this the most dangerous of all possible legislation and is Obama taking the "War on Terrorism" totally over the edge, declaring the USA is a literal war zone now, and imposing permanent administrative martial law permanently over the entire country and everyone of us. It also means that regardless of why any person was assasinated, it would be entirely legal as it is an entirely discretionary decision requiring no provable justification. If innocent Americans or bystanders are killed here in American, "oops" would be sufficient.

Maybe you happened to be on a bus or airplane or restaurant at a wedding with a suspected terrorist also there. That's enough to hit it with a drone just like in Pakistan.

Do you think this law giving this power to the President, AG and Military should be passed?

-----------------------------------------------------

joko104 said:

There is a filabuster now in the Senate to oppose a bill that would give the president, AG and Military the authority to administratively and secretly order drone strikes and assasinations against Americans on USA soil.

Obviously, a person has to support the death sentence to support this. But they also have to support setting aside due process of law and creating a Presidency and federal administrative government that has the full and secret power to order any American assasinated at any time.

Do you think this law giving this power to the President, AG and Military should be passed?

Click to expand...

I do not!

I was pi**ed that they killed the american in Pakistan with a drone.

I would not have had a problem if due process is followed.

I'm in favor of the death penalty for treason but due process must occur!!!!

Not on American soil.

Yo Loons, this is your president at work.

joko104 said:

There is a filabuster now in the Senate to oppose a bill that would give the president, AG and Military the authority to administratively and secretly order drone strikes and assasinations against Americans on USA soil.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's what's going on. My understanding is that Rand is currently filibustering the nomination of CIA director nominee, John Brennan, until he gets definitive answers from the White House regarding the subject. But I don't believe there's any actual bill on the floor. He had discussions with Eric Holder on it and was simply left with more questions.

I could be wrong, though.

Well maybe if they started with the sad cat's house. Just depends on the details of the law. I would still at least want something like the FISA Court to prove that it was at least probable cause that it had to be done that way as opposed to a traditional arrest.

NO regardless of where it takes place

Any situation in which this would be necessary is a situation we can probably justify after the fact and excuse retroactively.

I NEED TO CLARIFY... my OP is inaccurate. The filibuster is in opposition appointment of a new CIA director on the issue of whether he, the military and the President may already now order such assasination attacks for which no proof is ever needed to demonstrate this was necessary to prevent an imminent attack in the USA by an American.

It is NOT a piece of legislation.

Does it even have anything to do with John Brennan personally? I thought it was specifically about Holder and Obama's responses to Rand's questions about U.S. drone strikes.

SuperFan99 said:

I don't believe that's what's going on. My understanding is that Rand is currently filibustering the nomination of CIA director nominee, John Brennan, until he gets definitive answers from the White House regarding the subject. But I don't believe there's any actual bill on the floor. He had discussions with Eric Holder on it and was simply left with more questions.

I could be wrong, though.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I tried to correct and clarify above. This is not legislation. It is in opposition to having a head of the CIA stating such opinion of his practice if he becomes Director of the CIA - and it IS specifically about DRONE STRIKES on the USA soil. This topic has come to a head as the Department of Homeland Security is ordering many, many drones specifically for usage within the USA. Most people know these drones can be armed with missiles.

SuperFan99 said:

Does it even have anything to do with John Brennan personally? I thought it was specifically about Holder and Obama's responses to Rand's questions about U.S. drone strikes.

Click to expand...

I will try to explore more specific details. It does seem the focus is primarily on Holder's comments. For example, it was asked of Holder 3 times if an American suspected of terrorist plans was merely sitting at a cafe in USA eating dinner not presenting any imminent threat, could that person be killed then and there by a drone strike. 3 times Holder ducked answering the question. The 4th time, the U.S. AG said it was a question of ediquette.

This could be resolved by clear legal ruling/written opinion that the US Constitution will not allow the government to order an assassination or killing a US citizen on USA UNLESS that citizen poised an imminent danger to the life of others. With that, this would conclude. Why is that a problem?

I think Rand also asked Obama if he thought Holder's comments about hypothetical U.S. drone strikes were possible, and the answer he got was along the lines of, "Well, I haven't killed anyone that way yet."

Nice.