Does the Executive Branch have the right to attempt strikes upon it's own citizens in the United States?

Who supports Rand Paul's position on this issue?

Who supports Eric Holder's position on this issue?

(Kind of quiet, so the host suggest a light dinner conversation topic)

I would be between the two and likely a bit closer to Holder. I would limit any and ALL drone strikes to military targets only. The problem there is it is frankly too easy to classify something as a military target. Terrorists could certainly fall into that classification, anything deemed important to our nations well being could be a military target so it's not an easy definition but Rand Paul seems to think it would never ever be allowable and I just think some odd situation could develop where it is required.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no citizen shall be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is plain language. Drone strikes against U.S. citizens, here or abroad, should not happen until there is a legal determination that said person is an enemy combatant. It can be a military tribunal, it can be a special civil court, but there has to be due process. The determination cannot be made by the executive branch alone.
Beyond that, I do not want drone strikes used at all, against anyone, in the U.S.

freeman2 wrote:The Fifth and Fourth Amendment amendments provide that no citizen shall be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is plain language. Drone strikes against U.S. citizens, here or abroad, should not happen until there is a legal determination that said person is an enemy combatant.

Amen!

Are you guys going to join the tea party?

I think you have to distinguish between Americans on friendly soil and American who are living in areas where they cannot be prosecuted under American Law. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of independent judicial review in any case.

Here's the rub with that review process, sometimes you have a few moments to decide and have no time to do such a review. For targets inside America, I can hardly think of any reason to use a drone but would not want to rule it out as a really "out there" possibility. And what about a supposed "valid" attack outside the US where a US citizen were killed? It's a tricky tricky situation, a very messy and confusing mess.

But what really drives me nuts is why we have heard barely a peep from liberals? They are silent on an issue that is right up their ally, simply because Obama has sided with using drones, they do not want to disagree with him and that is beyond frustrating, the man is simply incapable to be argued with in the liberal mind nowadays. Bush had Guantanamo and the liberal outcry almost every day, Obama comes to office promising to release the detainees, he does a sudden u-turn and no cries of foul, then he comes up with this drone idea and hardly a peep ...Honestly, what am I missing here???

Apparently, liberals on Redscape don't count...

GMTom wrote:Here's the rub with that review process, sometimes you have a few moments to decide and have no time to do such a review.

How would that be? I can see you don't have long to decide if an identified target appears at a convenient location, but the question is really whether they are a legitimate target or not. That should really involve a fair amount of intelligence work, and if that has merit, a judicial review should be no real problem.

I know that in films and TV it comes down to split-second decision, but that is largely to make it more dramatic, not to reflect reality.

GMTom wrote:Honestly, what am I missing here???

That liberals have criticised both the non-closure of Guantanamo (which was due in large part to the legislature not allowing it) and the use of drones.

The liberals outcry has been incredibly faint. Funny how Gitmo was a major point during Bush with protests and daily news reports, after Obama it became a non-story, to say liberals still complain about it, who are you fooling? Same thing here with drones, yes some are speaking out but not as you would expect, be honest and what would we see if Bush had made this statement? If you think it would be anywhere near what we have now (near silence) you are playing ostrich with your head in the sand!

as far as the last second stuff, I think we agree more than you think. I simply leave room for some situation to develop that makes use of drone strikes viable. And getting "judicial review?" that just isn't going to happen very quickly. If you think judicial review can be fast, then how come you have no problem with how long it took to review the whole Libyan Embassy situation? It took several hours in that situation, but getting judicial review done within moments????? (but yes, we really do agree more than it might seem)

freeman2 wrote:Apparently, liberals on Redscape don't count...

And, a few liberals have had the guts to say the President is wrong on this, including Senator Wyden.

I find it shocking that the same President who insists on mirandizing foreign terrorists captured in foreign countries claims the legal ability to use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

Of course, he is the constitutional scholar!

If anyone HERE thought I was talking about any one person in particular when referring to "liberals" and the lack of their outcry, I was referring to liberals in general and the main stream media in particular. Sorry if anyone assumed I was speaking of them in particular, some have indeed spoken up about it here, I just find the silence almost deafening.