Using Drones To Kill Americans Is Legal

According to the Obama Justice Department

We’ve done that already, right? Under which administration? Anyone recall?

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

Ah, we kill Americans with drone strikes under the Obama administration. I don’t object, under the circumstances. What I do object to is the hypocrisy of the Left. What would have happened if George W. Bush had a policy of killing Americans with drone strikes? We all know the answer. We would have had demonstrations/rioting. And all the lawyers at places like Harvard and Yale would have been on television asserting that we’d lost the Constitution, that the foundation of the Constitution is trial by a jury of one’s peers, that we now have a monarchy, etc.

Dinner parties would have been intolerable. Instead dinner parties are rather pleasant because those lawyers aren’t on television complaining and therefore everyone else is calm. So, strike away, Mr. President. The constitution is only as good as the people who enforce it.

- Aggie

4 Comments »

  1. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    February 5, 2013 @ 7:27 am

    Dinner parties pretty much were intolerable, as I recall. But I, too, welcome this development. I don’t think we’ve killed enough Americans, as long as Michael Moore and Joy Behar are drawing breath.

    I read somewhere that not all of Obama’s 3,400 drone-strike victims could have been high-value Al Qaeda targets, and I’m sure that’s true. But so what? Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out is Obama’s strategy. Someone as experienced at firing a weapon as he is should be trusted to get this sort of thing right.

  2. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    February 5, 2013 @ 8:52 am

    BTL,

    Have you ever had an in-depth discussion with a moonbat lawyer over any of this? It’s fascinating. George Bush was a war criminal because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, (all plotted by Cheney, Bush too dumb to tie his own shoes), but it is ok to spend 1/6th of the US economy on a bill that we were told was not a tax, until the administration lawyers went to the Supremes and argued it was a tax. And the lawyers – all those lawyers – never even bothered to read it. ETC. Seriously, the constitution and the rule of law are silly concepts, something we should all get over in middle school. If I were raising my kids today, I’d explain the truth to them from the get-go.

    - Aggie

  3. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    February 5, 2013 @ 9:26 am

    I got a couple of lawyers to admit once that the Obama/Holder plan to hold show trials in NYC for KSM and his merry men (hey, they’re already guilty—we’re just showing the world what a real justice system looks like!) was a terrible idea. I really had them on the run, too, getting them to admit that such a corruption of the criminal justice system betrayed serious doubts. That Holder, the nation’s top lawyer, and the President, also a lawyer (even a law professor!), could seriously propose something out of the playbook of Stalin or Mao was profoundly disturbing. They didn’t disagree.

    You would be as unsurprised as I was to see the Obama ’12 bumper stickers on their cars a couple of years later.

  4. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    February 5, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

    And guess what… they won’t recall the conversation. And if you press it, they’ll have to switch to Dick Cheney, as if he was ever President.

    - Aggie

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment