Should the President be able to use Drone attacks against American citizens on American soil?

[still_one]

43 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, drone attacks against Americans on American soil should be under the authority of the President.
	4 (9%)
	No, drone attacks against Americans on American soil should not be under the authority of the President.
	39 (91%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[woodsprite]

1. I would have voted for the option "Drone attacks should not happen on American soil

or anywhere else".

[Kalidurga]

65. Well that is why I voted for neither option...

If we approve of drone strikes against foreign people on foreign soil or Americans on foreign soil we have no moral high ground when it comes to the issue of drone attacks on Americans on American soil. We aren't better or more important than people from other countries. We may be more obligated to each other, but it's really not a moral position to deprive due process to anyone.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. If ever there was something that wasn't a simple "yes" or "no" question

This would be it.

[still_one]

7. The Patriot Act opened the door to this

[DrDan]

8. never mind - no time here for further discussion

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Drones are military forces that should only be used in combat situations.

Using drones to conduct assassinations of individuals not in combat, under the patently false pretext that we are in some illusive never ending war against some nebulous ill-defined foe and that the entire planet is "the battlefield", is bullshit. It is criminal bullshit. We now have a star chamber where anyone can be secretly sentenced to death by executive fiat.

[Scuba]

11. The "war on terror" is not being waged against a "foe", but against a "feeling".

And since we keep feeding that "feeling", we can keep waging war forever. Sweet deal for the MIC, much better than the old Soviets.

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. That cannot be repeated often enough, scuba.

[HiPointDem]

61. +1

[The Second Stone]

68. That is exactly what is going on

we are at war with a human emotion.

[Jasana]

95. Slam, Dunk, Scuba. nt

[Cigar11]

4. Never say never ...

I disagree with Ran Paul most of the time, but he undoubtedly gained the respect of most Progressives and Liberals yesterday, or at least the ones I know personally. This isn't about Obama, it's about the Power of The Presidency and what that power should be used for, something we all learned about from over 4 thousand dead souls wasted over a undeclared War and received nothing in return from it. Ran also had the balls to express his convictions and not just obstruct for the sake of obstruction, something any idiot can do reading a phone-book for hours on end. I wish the rest of Congress would have the courage to filibuster this way and govern like adults.

I have no doubt that President Barack Obama won't use deadly force on his fellow Americans in America, but I wouldn't put it past any American who dislikes other people or a segment of their fellow Americans so much that they would take up arms against it's own countrymen. These are the so called Americans we should be concerned with.

But I have no doubt that if Timothy McVeigh was a block away from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and on his way to blow it up, and the only thing between him and a Snipers Bullet is simply pulling the trigger, there wouldn't be anyone disputing taking him out immediately without Judge, Jury or Trial.

My point is ... never say never, but defiantly have solid rules of engagement, here in America and everywhere else.

[HereSince1628]

22. Proving that the notion of a broken clock telling for brief instants the correct time

applies to politics.

Rand's extreme, and usually rather wacky, libertarianism does reflect a few kernels of human nature and such a kernel within the tradition of Americanism is to believe that a citizen is entitled to a trial, including a defense, before summary execution.

I don't really respect Rand Paul, I simply share this aspect of Americanism with him.

[graham4anything]

5. I sure wish more people were more concerned about bullets in our street killing 35 a day

I am for 100% removal of all bullets from the streets by anyone but law enforcement while they are on duty

Time to remove the Zimmerman's ability to kill.

That to me is more relevant on a day to day basis than some college debate gotcha!

Any disent against Al Gore, directly led to W being seated in 2000.
That is a fact.

Don't like W and what he did? Then don't vote for Jeb or anyone but the democratic candidate in 2016 and whomever they pick for their VP.
Then don't cut and run later and unfriend them as the kiddies would say over some wedge issue gotcha that they wouldn't do.

And a terrorists loses all their rights imho. So they are no longer citizens in good standing.

The constitution deals with Benedict Arnolds. And rightly so.

[TheKentuckian]

17. If that is the case then you would respect the clear Constitutional path related to treason

rather than the secret declare and kill bullshit but I'm sure you have some double talk, excuses, deflections, and distractions to carve out a third way.

[graham4anything]

21. Everything President Obama is doing is constitutional. Congress gave all the presidents authority

to do what they have to
and the Patriot act is legal.

therefore it is legal.

but then I know the 2nd is more important to some than the 1st

FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and we take care of fear by making sure those terrorists(defnition of terrorist=fearist) is taken care of.

No terror=no fear.

[sabrina 1]

60. Slavery was legal also. So was, more recently, forcing African Americans to sit in the back of

the bus, amongst other things.

It was also legal to prevent women from voting


So what is your point? We evolved from some of the clearly wrong, criminal acts that were once legal here.

Would you have defended slavery then, because it was 'legal'?

I would have thought that by now, at least Democrats, would not be using 'it's legal' as a defense for clearly criminal acts that war criminals managed to make 'legal'. In Dictatorships many things are made 'legal' also.

Droning anyone, anywhere without due process,using fake and illegal wars based on lies, no matter how legal, are crimes, immoral, unethical and just plain wrong.

[graham4anything]

64. Lincoln freed us from that. Of course, he had haters too

My point was, some traitors tried to stop Lincoln from freeing the slaves and a war started.

Everything Lincoln did was 100% correct.

Would you have sided AGAINST THE PRESIDENT?

Rand Paul would have spoken out against Lincoln.

President Obama=President Lincoln

Rand Paul = Davis and Lee and all the others that attempted a coup'd'etat against America like Rand Paul is doing now.
Bet Ron Paul Rand Paul and friend David Duke still fly the Dixie Flag, especially when they are three sheets to the wind.

[arely staircase]

93. and if lincoln had had a drone he would certainly have used it

in the service of saving the union and ending slavery. one drone over richmond virginia or charleston s.c. would have brought the whole thing to a quick end, would it have not?

[TheKentuckian]

98. Treason is specifically enumerated. Congress can only change the definition and how one

is convicted of such by amending the Constitution, no normal legislation will cut it or override our fundamental law.

[snooper2]

32. C

[fishwax]

56. "Any disent against Al Gore, directly led to W being seated in 2000. "

[Robb]

6. If I vote "no," can he still use cruise missiles and helicopter gunships?

[whatchamacallit]

42. Focusing on the method (drones) is an intentional distraction

Many of us are concerned about the issue of extralegal execution of American citizens. Drones happen to be the current prefered method of this action, so they're emblematic. Proponents of this power tend to ignore the heart of the matter and focus on weapons for obvious reasons. Clear?

[Robb]

44. Wait.

Everyone who focuses on the drones is a proponent of the power you're talking about? Does that include the OP? Because I don't think that's right.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Not everyone

but reading through this thread, and all like it, the pattern is clear.
Typical exchange:

DUer A - "The president shouldn't have the right to assassinate American citizens with drones"

DUer B - "What's with all this paranoia over drones? Drones are useful for law enforcement and more humane and ethical in battle than missile strikes and carpet bombing..."

[Robb]

48. This is the trouble when a thing becomes emblematic, as you said.

I agree, it's not the meat of the thing at all.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Yep

People are sort of talking past one another on this issue. Opinions can differ, but let's be clear about what we're debating.

[graham4anything]

57. Do you think all cops should give up all their guns and just hold their hand out and say STOP

like the policeman in "Frosty the Snowman"?


[img][/img]

[U4ikLefty]

81. You just proved the point of this sub-thread

I hope it was sarcasm

[randome]

9. More fear-mongering about that sinister word 'drone'.

That's not even the issue being debated. The issue is the use of force. And I would say 'Yes' if there was both a chain-of-command consisting of several people and a review afterwards.

We give the police the same authority in cases of imminent danger.

[whatchamacallit]

43. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2472890

[Niceguy1]

10. would we even

Be debateing this if a Republican was in office? Food for thought.

[still_one]

12. Of course not. We would be jumping up against the drone attacks. For many it is just our side

verses their side, nothing to do with substance

[graham4anything]

23. Yes. the 99% gave the ok for Afghanastan. It was Iraq where there was a difference

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:27 PM - Edit history (2)

the 99% wanted OBL and the other henchmen gotten rid of.
the 1% didn't.

Have you gone to the freper sites and blamed the republicans today?
Have you gone and texted Ralph Nader and said Ralphie, why?
After all they are the ones.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Incorrect, Barbara Lee voted against the authorization in the House and 10 others cast no vote.

That's just the facts.

[graham4anything]

45. the 99% wanted to . the 1% didn't.

[aquart]

54. No. I most certainly did not want to invade Afghanistan.

For a few days I pondered exploding pyramids and air raids in Mecca and Medina but I did calm down.

[Javaman]

13. See it works like this...

if under their current authorization, if used they won't violet the Posse Comitatus Act, but if they become controlled by the military then they would violet that act.

If I recall Obama is trying to have them under the perview of the military.

But I could be wrong.

[Coyotl]

14. What difference does it make where in the world it is? That is not the real question.

The real question is, "Should the President of the United States be permitted to kill people?" The answer should be NO, never, ever absent a valid declaration of war authorizing military action against combatants. Everything else should be handled by police action.

[onenote]

75. so if a hjacked plane enters restricted airspace

your suggestion for handling it is not have the President order the military to intercept it and, if absolutely necessary, take it down. Instead, you'd have the DC cops write it a ticket? Or do you support giving the DC cops their own jets and missiles?

[Coyotl]

96. Your hypothetical, not mine.

[onenote]

97. In other words, you are unwilling to back up or explain your "never" position when applied

to a hypothetical, but not out of the realm of possibility, scenario.

That's sad.

[guardian]

15. Barack Obama won't be President forever

Do you really want to give people like this the power to kill American citizens on American soil on a whim?

[JoePhilly]

25. Bush had the same power.

And they could have shot down a US airliner that was heading for the capitol or the world trade center.

That's really the only kind of situation in which such authority should exist.

Immediate threat with zero ability to use standard law enforcement mechanisms.

[Fix The Stupid]

26. Ok, educate me.

I see this excuse a lot here..."well, Bush had the power", "whisky rebellion", yadda, yadda...

If they always had this power then why was this 'update' (or whatever it is) to these laws needed?

Thanks

[JoePhilly]

30. Read the post I responded to ...

The poster is concerned about the "what if" Bush had the power (notice the picture of BUSH in the post).

The President (any President) has the authority I referred to.

Now, if you want to be educated, I'll try some more.

Lincoln killed many American citizens, and he used the military to do it. The Confederacy was not a separate country, and the Confederate soldier was still an American.

And so, if one wants to take the position that the President can NEVER kill an American citizen, they have to explain away the civil war. And the way to do it is to take the position that the Confederate soldier was attacking the United States government. And that Lincoln took the right course within those extenuating circumstances.

If an American is flying a plane, full of Americans, towards the Capitol, does the President have the authority to shoot it down. I'd say yes.

But again, the extenuating circumstances should be immediate threats for which traditional law enforcement can't be effective. The police can't stop an armed rebellion, nor can they stop a 747 on a crash course for the Capitol.

As for the "update" that you mention, but for which you include no details, I'm not sure what you mean.

Clearly, as the methods evolve, you have to "update" the rules. I mean, you only need rules for cyber surveillance after computer technology evolves to the point where people use that communication mechanism widely. Same was true for phone surveillance. Rules for how and when that could be done had to be created and updated as the technology evolved.

Updating such laws and regulations is a good thing because over time, the technology moves beyond the existing rules, and you probably want to account for that reality.

[Fix The Stupid]

38. That makes sense. thanks n/t

[Occulus]

58. Didn't they secede from the United States?

Doesn't that mean they didn't consider themselves American citizens?

Logic, you want it.

[SpartanDem]

62. Who's seceded in at Harper's Ferry or during the Whiskey Rebellion ?

it was US soldiers call out to deal the those matters not police and citizens were killed.

[Occulus]

69. Those were both armed insurrections

[SpartanDem]

78. Yes and if the military had drones back then

they could have used them.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

16. In extenuating circumstances. nt

[still_one]

18. where is the due process? Right now if there is probable cause, standard law enforcement can arrest

and handle such things.

[randome]

37. There is no 'due process' in an emergency.

A police officer who is fired upon or who happens upon a shooting in progress is authorized to use whatever measures are necessary.

The same should apply for 'imminent threats' faced nationally, with oversight and review, as TheKentuckian pointed out in his/her post.

[still_one]

53. Which you say the same thing with a bush, sarah palin, or ted cruz presidency?

[randome]

59. With oversight and review, yes.

'Oversight' meaning the authority is not vested in one individual. It requires the approval of at least three and then a public review of how the decisions were made.

To say we should remain defenseless because we can't define every possibility would not be fair to those who might be killed through our inaction.

[still_one]

86. For discussion sake, is that oversight being done today? Congress relinquished its oversight when

it passed the IWR, and what was congress thinking with the Patriot Act?

[TheKentuckian]

20. For extenuating circumstances there should be review and oversight.

I say we "fix it later" via pardons, the courts, and Congress rather than attempt to build a framework for extreme exceptions.

We have face real and present existential threats for almost 250 years without such hedging and should continue on that path.

[graham4anything]

24. Reagan in effect killed millions doing nothing about AIDS.

Why not go to the Reagan/Bush/Nader sites and ask WHY?

after all, they are the ones that will need to either be all voted out or change their view

You do know, George Wallace Dixiecrats forced LBJ to need the republicans to pass the great things he did.
Barry Goldwater and Arizona did NOT even want MLK to have a national holiday.

And Eisenhower, well, look what he did to the German POW's very humane.

Why didn't everyone vote for Adlai Stevenson when you had a chance?

I did NOT like Ike. What a bumbling dangerous fool he was. He was Reagan1.
Reagan was Ike2

[TheKentuckian]

88. We are discussing commission not omission and are you serious?

[randome]

36. Well put.

[sarisataka]

41. They would need to be some pretty damn good

extenuating circumstances- more than I can imagine...

It is hard to "fix it later" after you put a JDAM in someone's living room only to find they were planning a Bar Mitzvah and not a mass suicide bombing.

[randome]

52. I think that's why the 'oversight' part of it is important.

A chain-of-command that precludes one person making the decision, similar to the chain-of-command we have for using nukes or long-range missiles.

[TheKentuckian]

87. No, no. I'm saying that we'll fix the legality later not the result of the action.

That only as the action is deemed appropriate.

[irisblue]

19. NO. period

no, no, no. WTH! It is wrong for an American President to order the death of an American on American soil, period. We have a legal justice system that has worked mostly well for several hundred years. That should be used.

[FarCenter]

27. What would be the difference between using a drone, versus using a manned aircraft?

[JoePhilly]

31. Or a trained sniper.

Or even an army to stop a rebellion like the civil war.

[FarCenter]

33. Yes, the President as Commander in Chief and as top law enforcement executive can kill Americans

The use of lethal force by the military and by law enforcement is nothing new.

[frylock]

84. nothing at all. would you be in favor of extrajudicial executions by gunship?

[dipsydoodle]

28. Only if within your law

i.e. explicitly written in your constitution.

[geek tragedy]

34. Should federal government be allowed to shoot down civilian airliners?

Should law enforcement officials be allowed to shoot US citizens on US soil without a court hearing?

Questions that seem obvious sometimes aren't.

In the vast majority of conceivable cases, the answer is no there's no legal authority to do so. But that does not mean facts could arise making it legal.

[wtmusic]

35. Any method which kills indiscriminately should be banned.

The War of 1812 was just over two hundred years ago.

[sarisataka]

40. Call me old fashioned

I am a fan of these excerpts:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State

[ThomThom]

46. we have plenty of law enforcement personnel there would be no need

a judge needs to sign off on all drone attacks where ever
the Pres does not have the power to do it

[randome]

55. And if some yahoo hijacks a plane and threatens to ram it into your neighborhood...

...you would have no problem with waiting while the 'imminent danger' is assessed and adjudicated.

I think there needs to be oversight and review and a chain-of-command that makes it impossible for one person to authorize force.

But when there is an emergency, we need to react, just as police react under unforeseen circumstances.

[sabrina 1]

66. How about if someone shoots your mother or child or spouse in your neighborhood

should we call in the military and drone whoever we think is responsible.

It's laughable that you would assume that only 'foreigners' are going to kill Americans. Even including 9/11, the fact is that far, far more Americans have been murdered by other Americans even during that year. In fact millions of Americans have been murdered over the years, BY OTHER AMERICANS. For some reason though we have never advocated remote control devices to take them out. We generally use law-enforcement and that system of justice we claim to be so proud of, to deal with these crimes.

Or do you think we should, in order to save American lives, lives that are being lost even as I type this at the hands of other Americans, we should bring in the Drones and forget about that old, quaint (as Dubya called it) judicial system that takes so long, and 'evolve' to a vigilante, vengeful, 'take'm out' whether they are guilty or not and so what if there is 'collateral damage', kids, puppies etc?

Funny how you think that the only American deaths worth mentioning are the small % taken in one incident over a decade ago by foreigners.

Some numbers for you. Since 9/11, 44,000 Americans died because their Government refuses to treat them when they are sick. That is over half a million lives killed by Government policies, way, way more than any 'terrorist' could dream of. What should we do to those responsible for those tragic deaths? Drone them?

Unbelievable, who needs ANYONE to 'take away our freedoms' in this country when so many are so easily frightened into willingly handing them over without even a whimper..

[randome]

74. There is no 'imminent danger' after someone is murdered. Not the same thing.

And using the word 'drone' is irrelevant. No one person should have the authority to order someone's death. Period. But with oversight and review, in emergencies, we should have the capability of protecting ourselves.

I don't see how that's giving away any freedoms. 'Oversight', to my way of thinking, means at least 3 people in the chain of command who all agree on a given action.

And I said nothing about 'foreigners'. That was your assumption. We have plenty of murdering fools who ARE American citizens.

[sabrina 1]

80. Well we're not protecting ourselves very well, are we? When tens of thousands

of us are being murdered every year, tens of thousands more dying because of Govt policies, and even more dying on the roads, tell those millions of people who have lost loved ones what exactly 'imminent danger' means when it comes to protecting American lives. After all, this is the claim isn't it? We are willing to give the Govt the power to 'protect American lives', except they're apparently failing miserably in doing just that.

As someone who has lost someone right here I really don't care about terminology, I care that he was not protected while our government was running around the world killing innocent people supposedly to save lives in American. The whole thing is a sick joke to anyone with half a brain cell functioning, Not only have not saved any lives, they have cost the lives of thousands of American troops as well.

I'm not impressed, to say the least, by your choice of when we should try to save lives and what you are willing to give up, my rights, in order to do, especially since it's been such a spectacular failure. I mean we haven't won this 'war' in over a decade we are told, so we don't need any more proof of failure, if lives were the reason for it, do we, than the fact that we are supposedly still in so much danger that we need to give up even more of our rights. Where does it end, and when do we begin to see any results for all the money, and the over on million lives we've taken?

[ThomThom]

82. that might be an exception but hopefully we learned

our lesson about hijacked planes and won't let someone take over the airplanes, we now have marshals on board and have taken other measures
but I doubt that a drone could get there faster than a jet that would be scrambled so it is just a tool it is the authorization and who makes the call someone will have to make the call whether it is a sniper or drone or jet. So lets define when and who makes the call not just open the door.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Courts, judges, juries, oversight, are sooooo 18th century. We just need a daddy to decide.

[bigwillq]

51. No (nt)

[Fire Walk With Me]

63. The use or possession of drones by the government should be a war crime. n/t

[Romulox]

67. We elected this President. We should trust him to decide in secret who to kill!

After all, remember the alamo!

/amidoinitrite?

[cutroot]

70. An exchange I just read

Original post:

My 5 cents worth:

If, and that is the big IF, I am sure there is Terrorist planning an attack on the Golden Gate Bridge or any other revered "venue", I would happily deploy a drone to prevent the attack, EVEN if the TERRORIST is an American.

What's so difficult to understand?

Response 1 :

You gladly give up in fear that which should not be given. The 5th amendment is there for a reason.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

Response 2 :

“TERRORISTS in the act are no longer entitled to the 5th amendment. THE PRIMARY concern is neutralization of the threat. HOW that neutralization occurs is irrelevant. IF afterwards they are alive, they can be arrested, tried, convicted. But in the act they have none, nor are they entitled to constitutional protections.
FIRST neutralize the threat.
A concept cops have understood for years.”

[Marr]

73. You're talking about law enforcement.

I keep seeing this line of reasoning-- "cops kill in the line of duty, it's the same thing".

No it isn't the same thing. We're talking about targeted executions. If the police chief in your town had a meeting one morning and told all his officers to go shoot Chuck the Barber in the head because he had a feeling the guy might cause a problem someday, THAT would be the same thing.

[cutroot]

79. OP does not specify

In the act or conspiracy to commit.

Poor old Chuck the barber would be in just as much trouble whether it was a drone or not. The reasoning that I understood from this exchange, was that it would be best to trust our President's judgment at least as much as we would trust any cop on the beat.

The best of both worlds would be a complete and thorough investigation by an independent party of any and all actions taken in this way.

(That leaves congress out)

In one respect President Lincoln killed more Americans than any other. I would suspect that the CIA has higher numbers but we will never know.

[frylock]

85. did this terrorist receive any assistance from the FBI?

[JDPriestly]

71. I would add the president should not have the power to use

drones against Americans on American soil unless the Americans have declared they are invading or rebelling and have already used violence to invade or in their rebellion.

I think we should stick to the Constitution with regard to when the right to habeas corpus can be denied. It is pretty strict.

US Constitution, Article I, section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9

That's a good rule. It limits the authority of Congress to authorize the president to suspend the right to habeas.

If a building is being bombed, then probably that is due either to an invasion or a rebellion. We don't need any more laws or clarification of that in my opinion. It's pretty clear and the power to suspend habeas is very limited. It certainly cannot be suspended because of something someone said. There has to be a rebellion or an invasion that threatens public safety. Using drones suspends habeas corpus unless, I suppose the target of the drone is a very, very dangerous fugitive.

[onenote]

76. Lets say a building isn't being bombed. Let's say a plane enters restricted airspace

over the White House or the Capitol Building. And let's say that the plane does not respond to demands that it leave restricted airspace. At what point and by what means can the government respond to the potential threat posed by the plane.

I'm not suggesting that there is an easy answer to the question. I'm just suggesting that absolute answers generally don't work.

[Marr]

72. Should he have the right to have any citizen hung, simply on his order?

"Drone" is actually an irrelevant piece of information here.

Remove the drone part and it's still heinous. Should the president have the right to target American citizens for execution inside the US, by fiat? Whether they're using a drone aircraft or a sniper rifle or a noose, it's all equally disgusting and obviously unacceptable.

[samsingh]

77. i trust this President to do the right thing, but i would be uncomfortable if bush had

that power

[frylock]

83. that all depends. is this a president i like, or a president i don't like?

[rrneck]

89. It's wrong to engage civillians with weapons of war. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

90. I voted "other"

The weapon of choice matters not at all. Due process does. Following the law does.

I oppose the ordering of a "kill" on anyone. That is an unqualified statement.

[Beacool]

91. The simple answer? No.

I'm not that crazy about the use of drones in general, although they may be useful in some circumstances. Drones are killing too many civilians in Pakistan and everywhere else where they have been used on a regular basis.

[arely staircase]

92. just for the hell of it or in the case of an insurrection?

in the case of the latter, i would suspect they would and should be used.

would you prefer the carpet bombing of south carolina teabaggers who have pulled some sort of secession stunt and taken over or otherwise attacked federal property?

i vote drone. why harm non-combatants if it isn't necessary, especially in such a boiling point situation. you think buchannan wouldn't have lit john brown up with a drone if he'd had one? you think lincoln wouldn't have used one to put a missile up robert e lee's ass?

[Throd]

94. Absolutely Never! and Yeeaahhh.....maybe....

The means is a distraction...