Drones in the Press .. again.

[K-man]

Killing of Americans by drones 'is lawful'


WASHINGTON: The White House has defended drone strikes on al-Qaeda suspects, including Americans, as legal, ethical and wise, and says they comply with US law and the constitution.


But Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Sherry Rehman, said US drone strikes in Pakistan were a ''direct violation of our sovereignty'', illegal and counterproductive, producing more militants than they eliminate.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/white-house-defends-drone-strikes-on-us-citizens-20130206-2dxbv.html

Interesting concept. When are one country's laws and constitution legally binding one another autonomous, sovereign nation? If China were to send drones into the US to knock off a few Chinese dissidents, that would obviously be legal, ethical and wise? Mmm! The term, "Can of Worms", springs to mind. :asian:

 

[Big Don]

There would be a lot more talk about due process were another country to assassinate one of their citizens here...
or, you know, if a Republican was in office...

 

[James Kovacich]

As long as we are giving them a **** load of money. They coming along for the ride.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

Today's offering.

John Brennan's bunker is a soundproofed, windowless suite in the White House basement where, as one senator put it, Barack Obama's counter-terrorism chief "decides each day who he's going to execute".


Behind guarded doors, Brennan – the "priestly figure" nominated by Obama to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency – draws together the lists of suspected terrorists for assassination by drone in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. They are signed off by the president on what have become known darkly as "kill list Tuesdays".


It's an unprecedented role for a US president devised by an official who wields greater influence on White House security policy than more senior officials.


......

For the first time in US history, a president regularly signs off on the killing of named individuals, which has drawn criticism that he is acting as judge, jury and executioner. "Obama has used drones four times as often as George Bush," said Lowenthal. "I think that's a very interesting statistic because the drones allow you to do things but they don't put US lives at risk. In many respects, it fits the way in which Obama likes to approach a lot of his foreign policy problems – to be engaged but not to have too much at risk."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/05/obama-nomination-john-brennan-cia

 

[James Kovacich]

I think it could be considered as a "necesary evil" in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

I think it could be considered as a "necesary evil"

The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth

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 defense.

and 14th amendment rights

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. [/quote] Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?

Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.

 

[K-man]

Under certain circumstances, I could condone the use of drones. I would be happy to hear it described as 'a necessary evil' or 'action we have to take to ensure the safety of our people'.

It might be considered 'ethical' by some and it might be considered 'wise' by others. Some may even consider it 'ethical and wise'. What I find difficulty getting around is 'legal'. :asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth and 14th amendment rights in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war.

Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.[/QUOTE]

I saw it talking about forein policy in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia... where did it say America?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[James Kovacich]

The outright violation of an American citizen's sixth and 14th amendment rights in order to move forward with our draw-down. Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war.

Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about when we took out the head of the Yemen Alqueda who was an American born citizen?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

Don't forget the deck of cards hit list of the Iraq war. Presidents have difficult decisions to make and today for than we are able to what they are doing.

The Iraq 'War' was at least a war even if undeclared. (More accuately it was an invasion.) Even in Afghanistan the use of drones could just be considered an extension of the ground 'war' (again undeclared), same as the use of aircraft. But drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemin are conducted under the auspices of the CIA. There is no war, there are no troops on the ground and both countries are sovereign, if unstable, nations. :asian:

 

[Big Don]

Could you point out which of these were American Citizens? Or, where it said those pictured on the cards were to be killed on sight?
That does NOT give Obama permission to murder American Citizens.

Are you talking about when we took out the head of the Yemen Alqueda who was an American born citizen?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]

Yes, who, although being scum, was an American Citizen whose 6th and 14th Amendment rights were unequivocally violated by the order of the President of the United States.

 

[James Kovacich]

He denounced his citizenship publicly in at least one of his rants. He declared Jihad against America. He was more than a traitor, he was a terrist that was hell bent on killing Americans. He had no American rights.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

He denounced his citizenship publicly in at least one of his rants. He declared Jihad against America. He was more than a traitor, he was a terrist that was hell bent on killing Americans. He had no American rights.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

According to you and the current administration, no. According to the US Constitution, i.e., the highest law of the land, he had a right to face his accusers and to due process...

 

[James Kovacich]

He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Your hypocrisy is astounding. You wring your hands over water boarding and excuse outright murder. You've screeched about abusing the rights of terrorists and ignore the blatantly unconstitutional killing of an American citizen.

 

[ballen0351]

He was ALQUEDA and denounced his citizenship! That's just another reason why your party is in the toilet. You hate the president so much, you rather try and protect the rights of terrorists. Sheesh, were you also worried for the American taliban when we caught him? BS

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Did he follow the legal requirements to renounce citizenship?

If he didn't he was still a citizen



THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).

B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

A person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. *In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen.*

 

[James Kovacich]

I understand the rights issue. He was wanted by Yemen and the US, there was no way he could walk in and formally renounce his citizenship. Anyone sticking up for the rights of someone like him makes me puke!

He was a terrorist with Jihad against us. I'm a patriot and would of pulled the trigger myself given the chance.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

I understand the rights issue. He was wanted by Yemen and the US, there was no way he could walk in and formally renounce his citizenship. Anyone sticking up for the rights of someone like him makes me puke!

He was a terrorist with Jihad against us. I'm a patriot and would of pulled the trigger myself given the chance.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I guess its OK until your on the wrong side of who ever is running the show. Then its not so good anymore. The point have having rights is so they are applied to everyone regardless so if that makes you puke I'm sorry. I've defended peoples rights that have made me sick to my stomach plenty of times. Its just the way it is.

We have file cabinets full of warrants I guess as long as they are wanted its cool to go blow them up.

And before you start that "your party". Crap I'd be against this if it was Bush Clinton Bush Reagan Carter ect ect ect..................
I do find it amusing that your "party" however holds Bush at fault for a war that congress agreed to, yet give Obama a pass for killing US citizens in countries were not even fighting in.

 

[billc]

From Legalinsurrection...

http://legalinsurrection.com/

Every now and then someone at The New Yorker writes something witty


Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, February 9, 2013 at 1:45pm

Not often anymore, mostly just hack attacks on Republicans.

But this is good, even if it does take a gratuitous shot at Dick Cheney, Andy Borowitz, U.S. Cancels Regular Drone Strikes on Saturdays:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Citing budgetary concerns, the United States announced today that it would discontinue regular Saturday drone strikes on U.S. citizens, beginning in 2014.

In announcing the decision, the White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the cutback in drone service was “bound to be controversial.” “In the United States, we’ve always prided ourselves on our ability to target our citizens with drone strikes, Monday through Saturday, regardless of the weather,” he said. “We know that losing Saturday drone service is going to take some getting used to.”

​

But the move to cut back drone service drew sharp criticism from a longtime defender of the program, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney.“Like most Americans, I thought I’d never see the day when drones just up and take Saturdays off,” he said. “This would never be happening if I were still President.”
As if to silence critics, Mr. Carney assured reporters that drones could “still get the job done” Monday through Friday, and reminded U.S. citizens to update the government on any change of address so the drones would know where to reach them.
​

 

[James Kovacich]

I guess its OK until your on the wrong side of who ever is running the show. Then its not so good anymore. The point have having rights is so they are applied to everyone regardless so if that makes you puke I'm sorry. I've defended peoples rights that have made me sick to my stomach plenty of times. Its just the way it is.

We have file cabinets full of warrants I guess as long as they are wanted its cool to go blow them up.

And before you start that "your party". Crap I'd be against this if it was Bush Clinton Bush Reagan Carter ect ect ect..................
I do find it amusing that your "party" however holds Bush at fault for a war that congress agreed to, yet give Obama a pass for killing US citizens in countries were not even fighting in.

Haha...That party quote was reality. The Republican party is in the toilet. They are behind over 20% of voters in the age group 18-30 and they overwhelming lost big in the Hispanic vote. In the next to elections they are set to lose even more if they doin't wake up.