« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Should Americans be given the chance to surrender before they are killed?

By: Griffin@griffinelection (Diary)  |  February 8th, 2013 at 09:23 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday, in John Brennan’s confirmation hearing for the position of Director of the CIA, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), asked Brennan whether an American citizen that has met the CIA’s test for assassination, may be given the opportunity to surrender before being killed.

Brennan stated that all Americans who have joined with, Al-Qaeda (for example) have been provided notice that the United States will kill them by any means necessary through speeches and broad U.S. foreign policy. 

So according to Brennan – the answer is no. 

The CIA will however, give the American citizen a unilateral, secret trial by CIA operatives to determine guilt or innocence.  Under Brennan’s watch, the CIA will continue to act as the JUDGE determining the rules that give exception to Constitutional Due Process rights, the JURY in determining whether the American citizen is guilty and the EXECUTIONER of the citizen. 

This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 

The Fourth Amendment does not provide exceptions for Al-Qaeda operatives. 

We provide free speech protection for the despicable members of the Westboro  Church that pickets military funerals to ensure that good speech is protected under the First Amendment.  We protect the Due Process rights of despicable child rapists by giving them an attorney and a trial.  And we must protect the rights of despicable terrorists in order to ensure that our rights will always be protected.

I wonder how many liberals that are going along with Obama’s consolidation of power would feel comfortable handing over the power of American assassination to Karl Rove or Don Rumsfeld.  I wonder how they would feel twenty years down the road when this policy is completely accepted and no longer controversial when someone like Dick Cheney resides in the White House. 

The Justice Department White paper has NOTHING to say about the location of someone marked for assassination.  It does not mandate that they be located overseas.  It does little to define what a high ranking official is and it cannot restrict future administrations from broadening the definition of how a terrorist group is defined. 

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) noted yesterday, and Rachael Maddow reported last night that while almost 5,000 “terrorists” have been taken out by the Obama administration, only one has been captured and brought in. 

We as Americans have allowed our Constitution to become pliable on many amendments.  But the Fourth Amendment is too sacred to compromise on.  The assassination of Al-Awlaki was not necessary.  We could have had Eric Holder or a military tribunal press charges against him here in the U.S.  The government, who knew Al-Awlaki’s position in Yemen could have then picked him up and brought him home for trial.

Would this have been more difficult than a drone strike?  Yes.  But our special forces would have gotten the job done. 

This administration is already restricting just about every right in the Bill of Rights, save the III Amendment.  Obama has actually been a stalwart against quartering soldiers in homes.  Our Senators and Representatives need to take this issue up and pass bi-partisan legislation that prevents the executive branch from usurping this type of power. 

This is common sense and bi-partisan.  If I can cheer on Rachael Maddow’s reporting of this issue, then there has to be enough libertarians on the right and civil rights activists on the left to come together and push back here.  Once the 24-hour news cycle drowns it out, it will become cemented as United States policy and the power will only be broadened in each subsequent administration. 

If we are going to ignore Due Process, then the answer is yes, we should at least provide American citizens with an opportunity to surrender.         

And one more thing.  There should be 100 Senators that oppose Brennan’s nomination.  If Democrats are really the leader on civil rights, they have a responsibility to take this one and run with it.  If Republicans can block the nomination of Susan Rice over an interview or slow down the nomination of Chuck Hagel over comments, they can certainly Filibuster the nomination of a dangerous soon-to-be CIA leader  — in fact, they have a responsibility to.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • PowerToThePeople

    If you want to argue that the order needs to be written clearer so that a slippery slope can not be reached, fine. But to claim that somehow an American citizen who takes up arms against his or her country deserves extra special treatment is absurd. To claim they can not be killed by any means possible is even more absurd. But to claim that we should somehow put our troops in harms way just to avoid killing them, is ludicrous.

    Any enemy soldier, citizen or not, can surrender at any time they chose, but few chose to do so until they are in battle and see they are done. But once a person, citizen or not, joins our enemies, their death is part of the choice they made. They can surrender, but until they do, they are our targets. They are no longer entitled to the rights they abandoned, they have no expectations of mercy unless they ask for it. The killing of enemy soldiers or terrorist has nothing to do with our constitution regardless of their past citizenship. It is war and our job is to keep our soldiers and citizens safe, not take extra measures to arrest an ex-citizen whose intent is to do us harm.

    As I stated, I can agree that we must define clearly who is an enemy worthy of death, but there is no issue with killing our enemies even when not in direct combat with them even if they were once citizens.

    • ohtimtim

      I was just informed that the name “PowerToThePeople” has just been added to the Administrations “kill list” for next week. I don’t understand why-maybe a computer error! But I would keep my eye on the sky next week.(sarc off).

      There is a big difference between the historical application of killing a citizen/traitor during an actual battle or capturing as a spy, and the current Administration just adding a name to a list and then sending out a machine to kill them plus whatever men, women, children, goats,etc. happen to be nearby. Seems like, in your mind,any American that is anywhere in the Middle East is a traitor if the Administration says so.

      I gather that one of the original reasons for the Fourth Amendment was to prevent people like King George III(Obama) from becoming accuser/judge/executioner. Adding this Justice Department White Paper to Obama’s interpretation of the NDAA, that drone I implied in the first sentence a lot closer to reality.

      • PowerToThePeople

        No there is not, there is no difference. One does not even have to have a rifle in their hands pointed at us to be an enemy. The guy driving the supplies to our enemy is our enemy, even if he is sitting in the truck. The guy who is charge is our enemy even if he never steps on the battlefield. The guy going around recruiting new terrorist is our enemy even if that person never actually engages in battle against us. We can and should try to kill these people when and where we can with whatever methods possible. Same applies to a citizen who has turned on his own country and has engaged in direct conflict or other forms of terrorist acts. He or she is fair game, period. And it does not matter how or when we kill them, until they chose to surrender, they are fair game. And it is no different to kill them in battle, have a sniper take them out, bomb them in their home when special forces find them, or have a drone take them out. As long as we are at war, the enemy is fair game even when not in direct conflict.

        And as I said above, if you have issue with the wording, great, lets figure out how it should be changed to make sure Obama nor any other leader can kill people in this country or for simply opposing them. But to state that somehow a traitor who is engaged in fighting this country, directly or indirectly, is not fair game is ludicrous.

        • ohtimtim

          I don’t have a problem with wording,but with actions. Having the power of accuser/judge/executioner in one person especially the President with no accountability is closer to the concept of having/being a KING/dictator than should be acceptable to any informed citizen. At the very least any such list should be subject to approval in some measure by a court similar to the F.I.S.A. Court (even though it is pretty much a rubber stamp). After all if the government needs approval to wiretap an American citizen, then they should definitely need court approval before killing him/her.
          Obviously, I was joking about the drone and the computer error, but given the quality of the intelligence available, if it is the same as the intelligence that promised to the American public that only the “very worst terrorists” are in Guantanamo while in actuality there were hundreds of innocents that were falsely “sold” to the US military for a fast buck, then I and anyone else should question its validity, after all not only is an American citizen going to be deprived of his premier right-LIFE, if a drone is used to accomplish the act then more than likely a whole lot of innocent bystanders will be taken out also (unless of course you agree with the government in that just because you are there you are not innocent).
          I agree with you that anyone in any capacity who’s actions are meant to harm us are as much an enemy as an armed soldier, but that is so all encompassing that could it also include a good portion of the politicians in Washington DC. The NDAA basically says that if you assist al-Qaeda ior its associate in any form, the Administration can lock you up and throw away the key. Yet, the Administration ,itself, has directly funded and armed al-Qaeda.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Listen, not going to keep up trying to convince a wall of facts nor am I going to keep on trying to prove to you facts when you are hell bent on emotions.

            He is commander in chief, he has the right, no the constitutional duty, to protect this country, protect our troops, and decide the mission. Once a person raises weapons against us, citizen or not, or actively supports the enemy even without a gun, citizen or not, they are the enemy and are targets 24/7. We do not have to wait till battle breaks out to take them out, they are fair game until the war is over or they are in the process of surrendering. And the president of this country has the duty to do whatever is necessary to not only win, but keep our troops safe and that includes tactical strikes, drone strikes, use of snipers, and everything in between that is allowed under the rules governing war. Being a citizen does not give one a free pass and in fact, once the treason has occurred, their rights as citizens are gone. So whether we kill them with special forces raiding their hideout while they sleep, a sniper taking them out as they cook their meal in the mountains, in the fever pitch of battle, or from a drone is immaterial. And your repeated nonsense does not change that.

            As I stated before, there are plenty of things that Obama does wrong to bitch about, drone strikes even on treasonous enemy ex- citizens is not one of them. If anything, drone strikes should increase many times over.

          • ohtimtim

            Since you seem to equate a lot of verbiage to “repeated nonsense” and “emotion”, I will try to cut to the chase.

            “Once a person raises weapons against us, citizen or not, or actively supports the enemy even without a gun, citizen or not, they are the enemy and are targets 24/7. We do not have to wait till battle breaks out to take them out, they are fair game until the war is over or they are in the process of surrendering.”

            My basic point is considering how this “kill list” is made and who makes it, why do you give it any validity? If you don’t believe anything else the president says or does , why do you take his word on this as Gospel?

          • PowerToThePeople

            You are changing your original complaint that killing citizens who have denounced their citizenship by taking up arms against us or by directly aiding the enemy by drone attacks was wrong and a “violation” of the constitutional rights to now you simply have issue with the president being the one who decides who is on that list.

            A) President is commander in chief, it is not only his right, but his duty as well, to protect this nation and its troops. If he wants to write a kill list, it is well within his rights. The successful targets should be made known, but he is not required to do so.

            B) One can safely assume that the military is aiding the president when it comes to who is on that list and who is the most urgent target, so in reality, he is not making the list on his own.

            C) Believing the president has little to do with what he is entitled to do or obligated to do. I do not trust the man, but he still needs to show up to work.

            D) Since once again your new basic point is the kill list, who writes it, then you really have no point to make since once again, it is the job of the president to run the war. Making a kill list is part of that job title.

            So to sum it all up, you first do not like that ex citizens were not granted constitutional rights they are no longer entitled to and now simply do not like that fact that the president is writing a list of high priority targets and executing drone strikes on them when that is well within the parameters of his job title and duties. Since none of your complaints or concerns have any validity, guess your concerns and questions have been answered.

            So I go back to my original point, way too much to bitch about Obama, no reason to drag in things that are his job to do.

          • ohtimtim

            I am not changing my complaint, I am trying to narrow down to “spoonfuls” that you will be able to assimilate at a more reasonable pace, since you either failed to ascertain the Constitutional reservations that I expressed in my original response to your reply to the Diarist. The whole gist of my first reply to you was to affirm support of the Diarist view that “The Fourth Amendment does not provide exceptions for Al-Qaeda operatives.”
            You are the one who has taken to adding implications to my comments that I did not place there i.e.”You are changing your original complaint that killing citizens who have denounced their citizenship… “. If they have truly and officially denounced(renounced) their citizenship, then I am not talking about them; they are fair game. What I (and probably the Diarist) am referring to is that Constitutionally speaking can this or any Administration, when we are not in a Congressional (Constitutionally) declared war, act as accuser/judge/executioner to arbitrarily set aside the Fourth Amendment rights of any American citizen anywhere in the world whenever it wishes. I , the Diarist and quite a few Congress critters on both sides of the aisle seem to be of the opinion that “no, they can’t “. I was also simply asserting that a more constitutional process would be something similar to a F.I.S.A Court which although would be more akin to trying in absentia, would have more of a semblance of constitutionality than a king/dictator (regardless of party affiliation) putting out a contract killing.
            While I agree with you that I am merely stating my opinions, not spewing out a lot of facts, If my opinions are “emotional, repeated nonsense”, I fail to see how your enumerated points are anything more than the same since I don’t see any “Scripture and Verse” to back up yours.

          • PowerToThePeople

            So far I have been nice, at least for me, when it has come to your crap. Now, your repeated BS has long become an irritant. Your arguments, if you want to call them that, do not in any way grant you mental superiority. In fact, it only demonstrates that you only hover above the IQ of the retarded. Your BS is emotional nonsense based solely on who is president, not in reality or constitutional law. It is obvious you have no grasp on the duties of the president, what he can and can not do, and what he is obligated to do as president. It is even more painfully obvious that you lack the mental abilities of a monkey to grasp what rights a person has after taking up arms against his own country or actively aiding the enemy in their war against us.

            Oh and by the way, I could care less what the author, you, and a few congress “critters” think about it as that is not relevant nor does it give your argument credibility. In fact, I find it quite laughable that you try to even make that statement all things considered.

            Now, if somehow a miracle ever occurs in your life and amazingly your IQ is raised above room temp and your ability to muster even a small amount of ability to comprehend simple reality develops, then we can revisit this.Until then, I am all out of time for ignorant morons and that is really not fair to the rest of them that you used up all of it.

          • ohtimtim

            ” SMILE “

  • thirdeblue3639

    If you wish not to be bombed, please text NOTHANKS to #45634 in the next five minutes.

  • ohtimtim

    “Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) noted yesterday, and Rachael Maddow reported last night that while almost 5,000 “terrorists” have been taken out by the Obama administration, only one has been captured and brought in”

    I like how you put terrorists in quotes. The Administration gotten around the problem of innocent civilian casualties by defining all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants. This also helped make the success rate look better. I guess Mr. Brennan is not satisfied with just kill lists, he wants the CIA to be able to continue to do “signature strikes” also known as “crowd killing”. Since this also includes killing the people who come to help the first victims,that should really improve our international image. Just think, in the sixty some years since WWII we will have gone from world “savior” to world “Mad Dog Killer”

    As far as Mr. Brennan is concerned, didn’t President Bush tap him for the CIA also but the Democrats shot him down? If he wasn’t good enough then , why now?