Administration Ordered To Divulge Legal Basis For Killing Americans With Drones 310
An anonymous reader writes "In a claim brought by The New York Times and the ACLU, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the administration must disclose the legal basis for targeting Americans with drones. From the article: 'Government officials from Obama on down have publicly commented on the program, but they claimed the Office of Legal Counsel's memo outlining the legal rationale about it was a national security secret. The appeals court, however, said on Monday that officials' comments about overseas drone attacks means the government has waived its secrecy argument. "After senior Government officials have assured the public that targeted killings are 'lawful' and that OLC advice 'establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate,'" the appeals court said, "waiver of secrecy and privilege as to the legal analysis in the Memorandum has occurred" (PDF).'"
SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Good it passed appeals; the administration will likely appeal the decision and this is the kind of thing the SCOTUS will take. Frankly it's about time some of the "war on terror" policies were seriously and heavily scrutinized for their legality.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and if SCOTUS rules against it they can use their many SCOTUS investigators to make sure the administration is complying, and the legendary SCOTUS army to stop them if they're not.
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore, and that any idea that we live in a democracy or a republic is just a pleasant fantasy? If a Supreme Court ruling can be simply ignored by the other two branches, why are they there?
Re: (Score:3)
So can we just all admit that we have no control over our government anymore
Why admit something that isn't true? Would I love to have more control over my government, the US government? Absolutely. Would I like to have a much smaller government which can be controlled easier? Absolutely. Would I like constitutional rule changes, like abandoning the first past the post, that undermine the current political oligopoly? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that no control currently exists, but rather what control does exist can be greatly improved.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:4, Interesting)
We have exactly the government we deserve.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. The problem here is not that the people do not have a means to control their government it is that the vast majority of them do not give a shit. We have become a nation of people that will wait till the cops arrive while being bludgeoned to death. We will vote which ever party promises us the most free stuff. We value the illusion of safety over freedom. the news anchor is our one true God.
We have exactly the government we deserve.
SOME people in this country have exactly the government they deserve. Those of us who faithfully follow the process, campaign for better ideas, and get nowhere because we're surrounded by masses of apathetic, incompetent idiots do not have the government we deserve. Significant power and authority returning to the individual states would help with that (not solve it by any means, but help).
Re: (Score:3)
Just repeal PATRIOT and it solves 90% of the problems. Have you written your senators demanding they repeal it?
Why only Americans are of concern ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why only Americans are of concern ? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference, however subtle, between a government killing its own citizens versus other people. Governments kill citizens of other countries all the time, that's called war. When a government is using its military to attack its own citizens, regardless of which government it is, then that is a major problem. Those governments are typically not seen as very legitimate in modern times. Syria is a good example of that. Syria is an interesting case though, the world doesn't seem to really care what's happening there.
It would be interesting to see the US government declared illegitimate by its people. I would support that, I know that I am not represented in my own government. If I contact my representatives I get a boilerplate response. If I try to meet with one of my representatives I get ignored. This country is definitely not a representative democracy or really even much of a republic, it is an oligarchy. The elite and wealthy are the ones with the real power, not the people in general.
Re: (Score:3)
The US simply kill whoever they want, wherever they want.
Yeah, that's the beauty of the "Global War On Terror", right? The enemy is whoever the government says it is. They have no nation. The government can define "terrorist" however they want to define it in order to justify whatever they want to do. Oddly enough, most other countries seem to be (officially) ok with this. The US will only start to have a problem with it once other countries start using a definition of "terrorist" that includes a large group of Americans. But, as it is now, my government ca
No answer will be given (Score:5, Informative)
History dictates that Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense. He has already done this for himself and his AG; the latter currently in contempt of an ineffective Congress which is unlikely to do anything about it. With a Democratic Senate, there will be no impeachment.
These are the facts, and I commend all of you who could read them before down-moderation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are absolutely crazy if you think anyone in government wants to explain this or be associated with this. All parties want this to go away quietly, because there's a non-zero chance "their guy" will be using this same tactic in the coming years.
This acts to disempower the government, which makes it a natural enemy to anyone working in the government.
Re:No answer will be given (Score:5, Insightful)
With a Democratic Senate, there will be no impeachment.
American Government fail on your part. The House of Representatives impeaches. The Senate convicts. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted and removed from office.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a little extreme in its assertions. It's not impossible that it's true, but I doubt you'll ever change your opinion if the white house did comply(not that complying would be enough to actually do anything important).
Re: (Score:2)
There wouldn't be an impeachment if the Tea Party controlled both houses of Congress. One of the first things the Obama administration did was get Congress to sign off on everything they were doing including the illegal surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll also protect the previous President regardless of political affiliation. Just as there has been no repercussions for Bush, there won't be for Obama.
Re:No answer will be given (Score:5, Insightful)
When legal basis is secret, everything is legal... or illegal, as the keepers of the secrets deem fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No answer will be given (Score:5, Insightful)
How long does it take before you're no longer allowed to justify what "your guy" does by pointing out the the "other guy" did bad stuff too? Does that end after Obama's current term, or are we still going to be hearing the "Bush did it too" excuse in 2020?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guy? Who said Obama is my guy? I am only pointing out that people who are up in arms about what he is doing were, for the most part, completely silent when Bush did it.
Pick anything you like: executive privilege, spying on U.S. citizens, signing statements, the list goes on. Everything that he is doing, and the right is complaining about, are the exact same things Bush was doing and the right kept gloating about how well he was doing.
We cannot have it both ways. If you're going to complain about how on
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, I'll pick one thing (how about what the /. post was about) The POTUS using drones to kill Americans. Obama is the only President I know of who has ordered the murder of US citizens. No pretense of a trial. Not even a criminal indictment. Nope, just drone them and claim as the President he has that right. For that he should be impeached... and then he should be tried for murder and executed.
Re: (Score:3)
My guy? Who said Obama is my guy? I am only pointing out that people who are up in arms about what he is doing were, for the most part, completely silent when Bush did it.
Well, I for one was vocal about Bush, and I was vocal about his father, and I am vocal about Obama. I'm just not as vocal as some of these guys.
What I'm frankly tired of is people who act like the president is the problem. He's just one little piece of the problem. Just one man. He reads from the script like everyone else.
Re:No answer will be given (Score:5, Insightful)
History dictates that Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense
So he'll be like George Bush? After all, the previous administration used every trick in the book to prevent the public from knowing what the White House was doing such as claiming he needed "unbiased" information which is why he refused to turn over the visitor logs when meeting with oil executives on U.S. energy policy, or claimed that by not opening emails they weren't "read" and so the contents didn't have to be turned over to investigators, the public or even backed up for historical purposes.
And let's not forget Bush (and Vice-President Cheney) avoided every single Congressional request to testify on the failings of his administration to prevent the 9/11 attacks, including refusing to hand over every document requested by the 9/11 Commission except for one page, heavily redacted, which had the title, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.".
So if you're saying Obama will declare "executive privilege" or some other nonsense, we can safely assume he is following the example of his predecessor
Please tell me you are not using the wrongs of the past to justify the wrongs of today? Come on now.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it seems a lot of people have no problem with Russia annexing Ukraine because the US invaded Iraq in 2003. And Putin is taking full advantage of this ideology while trying not to laugh to hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me you are not using the wrongs of the past to justify the wrongs of today? Come on now.
I'm not sure anybody is saying give Obama a free pass; some of us are just wondering where the FUCK all you constitutional-waving administration critics were during the Bush years... suddenly crawling out of the woodwork after hibernating 8 year I gather.
Sure, maybe Obama hasn't done everything perfect, but I know one thing: throwing Obama under the bus for what clearly started under Bush/Cheney is 100% bullshit.
It gives the impression of really wanting to hide and/or distance one group of politicians from
Re:No answer will be given (Score:4, Insightful)
> Even a full Republican Congress would not move to impeach Obama on the basis of targeting Americans that
> are ALLEGED terrorist operatives hanging out with other ALLEGED terrorists in Yemen...
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
> Even a full Republican Congress would not move to impeach Obama on the basis of targeting Americans that
> are ALLEGED terrorist operatives hanging out with other ALLEGED terrorists in Yemen...
FTFY
Sure, but doesn't change anything. I think blowing up terrorists with drones and claiming executive privilege predates Obama by at least one administration. If anything the Republicans are likely to argue he didn't blow up enough of them (what! there are still civilian structures standing in Yemen?!! why aren't there boots on the ground?).
Re: (Score:2)
You don't run against Obamacare, you lose 90% of the popular vote.
Seriously, change the channel.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, I'm not greatly in favor of Obamacare. I don't know how much to blame him for the implementation, but it's horribly flawed. Mainly because he didn't cut out the insurance companies, but also because he gave the drug companies a sweet deal. Also because it STILL isn't universal coverage.
Basic medical coverage should be a universal coverage. Insurance should be for coverage for exceptionals cases. It's true that drawing that line is not a straightforwards matter, but it should at least cover vaccin
above the law (Score:5, Insightful)
we have not followed the law of the land for some time. why start now?
more meaningless proclamations.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix th
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix the problem. Propose a first step.
Indeed. The difference between the past decade and the previous centuries is that now, a sizable number of people can become easily aware of these issues, and can also be easily impacted by them.
Think of it this way: the Constitution was drafted by slave owners, and yet by today's interpretation, it prohibits slavery and racial discrimination (even without amendments). What changed the interpretation? Society as a whole becoming fed up with how key bits were interpreted (such as "people").
I think you'll
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, without amendments, even though 13 and 14 are specifically about that.
(And a lot of jurisprudence about non-discrimination come at some level from 14)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start by lining up the lobbyists and ceo's of any company with more than 2,000 employees (large enough to lobby/control government). A new set would crop up, line those up too, repeat until companies voluntarily downsize and lobbying is seen as a sub-optimal and short career.
Lets see what hapens (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
Yes
And yes American citizens abroad as well.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/ [politifact.com]
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18019-federal-court-drone-killing-of-u-s-citizens-is-constitutional [thenewamerican.com]
... well, as long as you are on a terror watch-list which automatically removes your rights or aren't the "intended" target.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you are journalists. we really like killing journalists.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
It should be the other way around. A country should only be permitted to kill its own citizens, not citizens of other countries.
The former is acceptable, given the citizens in question are part of the electorate who sanctioned the laws and government, giving them powers over their lives.
The latter is an act of war and trespasses on the sovereignty of other countries and its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it different from killing them without drones?
What the fuck does a drone (just tool) have to do with it other than its a new reason to be uppity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
It seems so, and if the government accepts that American citizens cannot be so killed, then, well, there will be some method to remove their citizenship and then they can be killed. And then all will be as it was before; or perhaps a bit worse.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of rules are different for citizens and non-citizens.
As an example, I expect that there isn't a country in the world that can legally deport its own citizens, but there's no problem with deporting illegal aliens (non-citizens in a country in violation of immigration laws).
Likewise, in the US, it's not illegal to shoot enemy soldiers, but it is illegal to shoot American citizens without
Re: (Score:2)
Unless US citizens are deemed to be enemy combatants, then you can murder all of them you want. No military man went to trial and was executed for the murders in kent state.
If you think the US military will not mow down US citizens on orders, then you are insane. Go and ask off duty military men what their oath means. none of them will say they frag their superior officer before shooting an american citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of US territory.
See, within the US or when targeting Americans, the Constitution and other laws apply.
When the US kills non-citizens on foreign soil, there's no US law against it. That's because that's armed combat. (It might also be a covert operation, in which case whether it's legal is up to the country in which it took place. It's probably not legal.) Dealing with other countries killing your citizens within your borders has traditionally been dealt with through this thing called "war", and, mor
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, at least that is how the American government thinks. And there is a segment of the US population, the incredibly stupid ones, that also believe that.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd certainly be a good border security method against Mexicans. In fact, they could start by just targetting drug runners and practically solve the drug problem overnight. Drug dealers cost America more money and kill more americans than terrorism by about 100000x
When did drug smuggling become a capital crime?
And when did suspicion (probable or not) of capital crime put aside the requirement for due process?
Re: (Score:3)
It'd certainly be a good border security method against Mexicans. In fact, they could start by just targetting drug runners and practically solve the drug problem overnight. Drug dealers cost America more money and kill more americans than terrorism by about 100000x
When did drug smuggling become a capital crime?
I'm pretty sure it happened about the time interdicting drug smuggling involved risk of death.
And I'm pretty sure *that* happened about the time that being a successfully interdicted drug smuggler carried huge penalties, including life in prison.
And I'm pretty sure *that* happened when people starting smuggling huge rather than trivial amounts of drugs.
And I'm pretty sure *that* happened about the time the economic incentives for smuggling became so large.
And I'm pretty sure *that* happened about the time w
Re: (Score:3)
Due process has been dead cince 9/11 or do you forget that you wanted it gone? PATRIOT ACT did away with due process to make you feel safe from terrorist boogymen.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Bullshit. The so-called "drug problem" is 99% caused by prohibition itself. Prohibition has consistently failed to even influence overall addiction rates; much less drop them. It has consistently created perverse markets for low quality unsafe manufacture. It CREATED the problem of meth labs, and thus created the situation where we have half the people in burn units around the country in there for cooking meth. You asshole prohibitionists did that...its on your head.
Never mind that the next 3 major drugs of
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, 100000x the 3000-odd killed when the Twin Towers were hit. So drug dealers have killed 300,000,000 million Americans?
Exaggerating for effect is nice, and all, but try to make your exaggerations at least semi-believable - it's hard to take seriously someone who says, in effect, "drug dealers have killed 90% of the population of the US"....
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, 100000x the 3000-odd killed when the Twin Towers were hit. So drug dealers have killed 300,000,000 million Americans? Exaggerating for effect is nice, ...
Yes, it is. My calculator shows that 100,000 times 3,000 is just 300,000,000, not 300,000,000 million.
I'm pretty sure he's considering the ongoing toll, not the one-off anomaly of 9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
Welcome to Planet Earth.
AKA "The REAL World!"
It ain't a nice place, and it ain't gonna be a nice place, in spite of all the sheltered urban first-world fantasies you can conjure.
Right. You have no right to complain unless your country is a third world shithole. It's just stupid to think that things could be better. Our founding fathers had it all wrong. People in other places have no rights so why should we? Thank you so much, AC. Without your wisdom and foresight, we would all be lost.
Secret Laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am -- and the court seemed -- appalled at the idea that "secret laws" can apply in a constitutional republic.
I doubt SCOTUS will touch this, as they tend to kick the can down the road on big issues like this, which, of course, will let it stand.
Re:Secret Laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says we're a Constitutional Republic any longer?
Secret Laws, Secret Warrants, Secret Detention and Secret Courts have been the norm since the Patriot Act, which was signed when we lost the War on Terror in 2001, by submitting to the terrorists and renouncing our freedoms in exchange for "Homeland Security".
And we love it. Notice how many TV shows are about Law Enforcement these days?
Re: (Score:2)
What you said is true; that's why I doubt SCOTUS will hear it. It lets them dodge a sensitive political issue without being embarrassed since only the law is in dispute according to TFA. This argument is the legal equivalent, to my understanding, of giving up one's 5th-amendment rights because one has given some information already without invoking the article.
Re:Secret Laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Notice how many TV shows are about Law Enforcement these days?"
We've always had shows about law enforcement, what's changed is perspective from the 70/80's to the 90/2000's.
The former were about largely about innocent people accused of crime who got exonerated (Matlock, Murder She Wrote, Perry Mason, Diagnosis Murder) or plain old bad detectives (Get Smart, Inspector Gadget, The Pink Panther).
In the modern era, the cops always find the right bad guy who may get off due to technicalities (Cold Case, Law and Order, CIS, Special Victims Unit, 24, Cops).
When the cops are always moral and their accused guilty, our justice system eventually has laws passed to conform to our notions of pop culture.
There's a broader question to be addressed here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is it permissible for any government to employ military force against its own (civilian) citizens?
Re: (Score:3)
Note that "convicted" doesn't mean "we know" - it means there was a trial of some sort, with rights preserved and arguments presented before sentence is carried out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Military (force|technology)" is an arbitrary distinction.
Military technology is an arbitrary distinction, yes. The OP used the phrase "military force".
Military force is when the military is used to apply force, and it is completely distinct from "military technology". A US Army PFC acting under his commander's order wielding an ax to stop someone looting a grocery store in the US is still a violation of posse comitatus even if the technology isn't "military" in nature, because it is still military force.
Re: (Score:2)
Since October 26, 2001. Patriot act passed and made it perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did say it was a broader question.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just US. (Score:3)
We're not really better, I guess. Just different.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, you're well on your way to being far far worse.
Because you justify what you do as OK, and somehow different when other countries to it.
The hypocrisy of America is become pretty brazen. You claim to support one set of principles, but actively work to undermine those principles around the world.
You feel self entitled to do these things, and think the rest of the world should accept it because America is awesome.
To the rest of the world, the US is rapi
Easy there, A/C. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People who would ignore the validity of someone's arguments because they don't like how they worded it are idiots who aren't worth having on your side, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But . . . I concede. Not worth my time to try to teach ignorant mother-fuckers that their asinine presentation has buried their message in bullshit.
All Obama, All the time (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny thing is that this is one of the two things that Obama can't blame Bush for, the other one being ObamaCare. So it'll be interesting to see what happens when the administration loses.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No Obamacare is the fault of republicans. it should have been single payer and kicked the insurance companies and big pharma in the nuts. the Repubs demanded it be the corporate welfare for insurance companies it is today.
I thought there were rules about this already? (Score:3)
Nobody (including US) seems to obey that rule, however . . .
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't forbidden, its just a bad idea, it turns the country against its military and the members of the military generally are going to question attacking their dads, mothers, brothers and sisters.
Once the military starts acting as a police force, countries fall.
Re:I thought there were rules about this already? (Score:4, Insightful)
If there citizens are required to be afforded due process by constitution and can not be shown to receive such, it's forbidden. The actual question is how far they can/will go before there's enough push back to either make them decide to stop or face repercussions. All of this secrecy nonsense is simply meant to avoid some of the push back by implying there is legitimacy. So long as that strategy keeps working nothing is going to change.
I'm sure they can "order" it all they want... (Score:3)
Booo, America sucks (Score:2)
Re:Booo, America sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Booo, America sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, that's your ad campaign? "USA: It's not as bad as China or North Korea?"
You're just the spiritual successor to Steve Rogers there, aintcha?
Re: (Score:2)
"Johnny did it first." (Score:2)
I'll consider it a personal favor... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, sir. This is a fully bipartisan, multi-Administration travesty of law and government. And it has been building since early in the Cold War, see United States v. Reynolds [wikipedia.org] which created the "state secrets privilege" by a court ruling in 1952. It is very telling that the "facts" presented to the court in secret were, in fact, lies (learned on 48 years after the fact). In secret the government can lie to heart's content without worrying about its dishonesty being questioned or revealed.
My Guesss on the Administration's Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to venture a guess, the Obama administration would say, "We did it because we can. Who's going to stop us?"
I am confused on this issue (Score:3)
I am confused on this issue. I'm not sure I even understand the question. Here is my thinking, so please comment:
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
I'm unclear why the citizenship of the person has anything to do with the military action used against them. I am also unclear why the method used to fire upon the person changes anything either. Would it make a difference if the person was a US citizen because they were born here but left 2 days after birth? What if they were a naturalized citizen who was a resident for more than 7 years?
Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?
Re:I am confused on this issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the commenters are ignoring the ambiguity of anti-terrorist operations when American citizens might be involved. Say, it's 1999 and Osama Bin Laden is spotted in an Al Qaeda camp sitting at his workbench building IEDs. Most Americans would scream for a drone strike.
Now, what if Joe Smith from Arkansas is sitting right next to OBL building IEDs? Now, lose OBL and it's just Joe the Terrorist from Arkansas in an Al Qaeda camp? How does the law apply? Most Americans seem perfectly fine with the ide
Re: (Score:2)
Safety is less important than freedom and the constitution.
Re:I am confused on this issue (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the basic problem is that we are not at war with country X.
I actually believe the basic bill of rights applies to the agents of government, not the people. i.e. it does not just protect these special people called "citizens", it restrains the government from certain actions, such as denial of due process of law, against any person. However, the general "rule of law" does not apply in a war zone. The problem is that we have become stupendously lax about exactly where the wars the US is currently fighting actually are. Are we at war with Pakistan? No, but we perform military strikes inside Pakistan without their consent. Are we a warlord or a modern country?
Re: (Score:2)
Now suppose the US is not actually at war.
False Issue (Score:2)
What happened to Slashdot (Score:3)
It's turned into a bunch of paranoid libertarians trying to one up each other with how outraged they are.
Confederates (Score:2)
Oh wait, they were bearing arms in open rebellion and making war on the Republic.
Same deal here. If you openly wage war, even against
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sure understand what it means to be living in a country that's supposed to be filled with free and brave people. You're an ally of democracy, due process, and individual liberties in general.
Re:Citizenship Is Not A Shield (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because some of these so called "Americans" had a US passport doesn't mean they can take up arms against their country without consequences. I'm glad we can just blow these fuckers to smithereens and save taxpayer money on these enemy combatants. They should know not to fuck with US and should scare their buddies from thinking they can do the same.
Yeah, fuck due process, fuck the constitution! The United States Constitution is un-American!
Re: (Score:2)
To maintain a some what effective justice system centered around upholding the US Constitution requires examining existing precedents raised in similar but possibly very different circumstances where a particular law or protected right has been applied. I think the killing of a US citizen who is located in a foreign state who is preaching violence and providing religious indoctrination for those carrying out acts of violence against the state and it's citizens is an exceptional case that does not lend itsel
Re:stop being a pussy (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that if he were in the US, "preaching violence and providing religious indoctrination", he would be protected by the First Amendment, at least up to the point that an actual act of violence occurred.
At that point, I think they could get him for incitement, perhaps, but that crime doesn't carry a death penalty....