1) Is it necessary? 2) Do you mind? Even Obama himself admits that certain unprecedented measures, including assassinating US citizens, spying on everybody in the world etc. is indeed crossing the line. Most people argue on behalf of the Constitution. For gun rights, for abortion rights, whatever. They will invoke it in a moment's necessary to support their opinion or claim. They will also condemn enemies for breaking laws, like Russia, Iran and the Nuclear NPT, etc. The interesting thing here is that not a single armed-state signatory has followed that treaty in either spirit or verbiage. We know torture is illegal, we know holding people indefinitely without charge or trial is illegal, yet we all just look the other way. The CIA is the biggest criminal mafia the world has ever seen, committing practically every crime there is, with complete immunity, for decades. About the only thing they don't do is gather decent intelligence. So is it okay to have a criminal government? Or only when such crimes are for your security? But are they necessary? In fact, haven't you noticed, like with the data-grab, they are for purposes besides security? It's never been proven that NSA data helped foil a single plot. It is proven to have failed to do so. It is also proven to have been used for completely different purposes, including clampdown on activists and economic espionage. Why allow this?
Consider: Every American Era from the Founding of Constitutional government has had the "Security vs The Law" challenge. Remember John Adams ? And I can't think of one time a historian analyzing the situation and found it necessary. California experienced the <Doom> Federals <Darth Vadar breath sounds> forcibly requiring even American born persons of Japanese descent to lose their property and be sent to an internment camp. Security at the cost of the Bill of Rights is no security. It is authoritarianism. Moi Got FREEDOM ? Less and less ! No
Unfortunately, we as a nation will. Most people want security and they are willing to exchange security for a little inconvenience. Notice I said, inconvenience. Our society is more concerned with convenience, not liberty. Liberty can be either. But our liberties has not been dwindled. Redefined. Yes. But not diminished, dwindled, or removed. We stll can travel from point a to point b without travel documents inside the U.S. It may take a little longer to go through the airport security, but that is only time right. Not freedom. That being said yes it may be necessary to violate the law for the greater good of a people, especially drone strikes on people who may or may not be U.S. citizens and who are more than willing to die for their cause that they believe in. That is the cold, hard reality here. I would rather for them to be killed four thousand miles away than to be here in the U.S. planning their next attack and using freedom of speech to do it. That saves lives in the long run ladies and gentlemen. Do I mind, yes I mind, because we also have to be vigilant so that the government does not overstep its bounds. It has not so far.
I really despised Nixon but I think he did the right thing by "crossing the line" to shut down the Black Panthers and Weather Underground. These types of organizations fight without rules. Why do we have to engage them with two hands tied behind our backs? And as far as assassinating U.S. citizens these are people at war with us. Go to war with us, we fight back.
What is the point of having rights if they are just going to be ignored? What is the point of the rule of law if it's not going to be followed? I cannot see any reason why rights should be violated or laws meant to protect citizens ignored. All that Jack Bauer BS belongs on TV not in the real world.
I'm sorry, but this is something I feel strongly about, but I don't believe it's okay to violate the law or a persons' rights in order to get them. While I'm not opposed to resorting to dirty tricks, that is not the same thing.
Of course they have. Every single American has lost their right to be secure in their own information. It's now stolen and passed to third parties without their knowledge or consent. The right to fair trial or even a trial is now gone. Which is an important right. Whistleblowers used to be able to come forward. You can't now. The rights are under systematic attack and they have indeed been being eroded. "Redefining" rights is the same thing. They were defined as inalienable, now they're defined as strippable. Which is not just dwindling the right, it's destroying it. The point of a "right" is you can't take it away. That's why it's called a right. Making exemptions defeats the purpose. I don't cite the TSA granny gropers as part of this, but think of the no-fly list. Innocent Americans have been having their rights to free movement and travel taken. FBI use this as punishment when people refuse to be informants. It's one of the new tools of oppression. It's not hard reality; it's hearsay. You don't even know who almost all of these targets are. None of us do. There's no proof the bombardments have saved a single life, and in fact, there's no proof that national security is the motive at all. Look at the NSA data grab. ZERO evidence of stopping any plots. They never named one. There is lots of evidence the data has been abused for clamping down on activists and for commercial spying. There's no proof any lives were saved. There's no proof of any active plots or even criminal wrongdoing. You need to realize, these conclusions are made based on mere allegations alone. What's stopping the president from killing whoever he wants, perhaps a political opponent for a foreign country or something? How would you know? How could you know? You do understand the whole point of due process, and what it is meant to prevent, right? This opens the door for a modern epidemic of "witch-hunt" state sponsored label-based killings like in Salem. It looks like they're heading that way. Activists, journalists and environmentalists et. al. have already been defined by this federal government as "terrorists". First of all, you can't know they haven't, as it's all secret stuff. I mean, we know the CIA operate secret dark sights where they torture and kill people. How many are there nowadays? How many people in them? Who knows! It's proven the government break the law. So what are the "bounds" if not the law? Isn't the whole point of the laws and constitution and bill of rights to define those bounds strictly and definitively?
There's no "war".. We kidnap or kill unarmed people from non-belligerent countries outside any legal war or battlefield. "war" is defined as live, armed-combat. And killing unarmed people not on the battlefield by stealth from a computer on the other side of the world is not "fighting" it is cowardice. Shouldn't you at least get a judge to sign off? Why would you trust Obama? He lied about everything he's ever done from start to finish, including his drone strike campaign, and he lied about the Alwaki strikes as well. But here's the problem. Where do we draw the line? I thought that's what the black and white is for. If not, then who gets to decide where the new line gets drawn? How far is too far? And who gives them the right to decide? What if the next president kills an American with even less of a case, or no case at all. Do we STILL give them the authority? What if next time it's on US soil? I mean it seems each time we give them an inch, we let them keep it, then we give them a mile, then they take another ten miles, and we give them twenty more. They know they don't keep each other in check, we don't keep them in check, so they know they get away with it. That's why, drone strikes on US soil ARE coming. What's to stop it?
If Obama were to use a drone strike on US soil today, to kill an American based on his allegations, according to the pattern so far, here's what would happen. 1) There would be outrage, with loads of Americans really mad, but maybe like a third of them defending the action and insisting it's for our own good. 2) Obama would lie about it. 3) Eventually, after bad press, public outcry etc. we might get them to sort of acknowledge that it might be out of line. 4) Offered nothing but vague reassurances and insincere talking points. Perhaps the promise of "reform", but that's to come later. If it comes, titled something like the "Stopping of drone strikes on US soil act" or something like that, and you go to actually read what it says, you'll notice it actually codifies into law the RIGHT to do the drone strikes, opposite the title, with a couple flimsy strings attached that tie nothing, like "unless their name doesn't have the letters a, e, or u in it and they have red hair and a Toyota". 5) The strikes continue. Less people are outraged. The debate is discussed less and less. People move onto other issues. Either distraction issues like the next boogie man, or perhaps the new crimes they've moved on. 6) It's now the new, accepted status-quo and few people bother to even question it. 7) One step closer to North Korea style compliance and acceptance.
In this case it's people and groups, not countries, that are belligernt. Whose definition? And ginning up fanatics to crash plains into buildings full of people isn't "cowardice"? Probably, but you'd object if the terrorist wasn't given notice so he could vamoose. I don't trust Obama. But did Atta tell security at Boston's Logan Airport that he was going to take over the plane and plunge it into the World Trade Center. I triust even Obama over Alwaki. Nixon was forced to resign when his opponents changed from people at war with the country to people at war with him politically. Sometimes you make ridiculous analogies. But on the other hand would hitting the "Unabomber" with a drone, when he was hiding out in the Montana Rockies, have been so bad if there was no other good way to extricate or kill him?
We do not have a right to privacy, aka our information, under the Constitution. We do, however, have a right to unreasonable search and seizure. But that gets complicated when third parties are involved, like Google, AT&T, and other companies who are willing to work with the law enforcement agencies. And when our information is stored in third parties and who state they own that information, then the only ones who may feel violated under the law are those companies. You may feel that the trust you have with that company is broken, but your rights still have not diminished. You still have a right to a fair trial, even under the MDAA, if you are an American citizen and the alleged crime happens on American soil. However, once you leave the shores of the U.S. or any of its territories, your rights end there. The Constitution is not there to protect you anywhere and everywhere. That is why drone strikes on suspected terrorists outside the U.S. and its jurisdiction are legal within our laws and within international law. And drone strikes used internationally should be the last resort after all other options have either failed or deemed impossible for too risky for security personnel. Drone strikes will be illegal if said drone strike occurs on U.S. soil and to an American without an attempt to apprehend. If the U.S. citizen opens fire and drones are use, then that is how this game is played. Sections 1021 and 1022 have been misinterpreted by many. Section 1021 does not override the Bush v Bustamante case and 1022 specially excludes U.S. citizens and legal residents from that requirement for indefinite detention outside the U.s, which will or should be deemed as illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention. As for secrets, there are times in which the government needs to keep secrets in order to do its job. These secrets are necessary and are codified in law. They do not violate the rights of individuals and they do not violate the Constitution.
There's no official war in any non-belligerent countries; that's what I'm saying. Blowing people up in their homes, or unarmed people, off a battlefield, these targets aren't considered belligerents. Belligerents are those engaging in combat. Non-combatants cannot be targeted, by law, especially in countries not party to any armed conflict. Depends which law but here's some info http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/qualification_of_armed_conflict.php The basic premise is that assassinations are something different. You can't just bombard different non-contracting countries and claim a state of war. Hijackers: Dead. OBL: Dead. KSM: In jail (yet to be proven guilty) Afghanistan: Victory declared Airports: Secured by granny gropers. Reforms/new security agencies and laws made to beef up security. You can't play the 9/11 card anymore. It's over. His lies were proven. We KNOW he lied about it. And it's not just Alwaki. Hundreds and hundreds of strikes are targeted in scores of countries in which there is no identified target at all, or target is top-secret. Most strikes actually. Why would you trust Obama and assume these are ALL an "imminent threat" against Americans as he claims? Like what? It's against the law. Though Holder claimed the US president has the authority to use military strikes against Americans on US soil in "extraordinary circumstances". This is of course false. While the military can be used for public safety or martial law even, that is the decision of the congress. The police are militarized anyway. They may kill armed people directly threatening lives, as they do often. We're talking about demolishing people in their houses and such. There's never a need for that. How come Obama won't strike AQ in Syria? They have a new safe-haven there, they are conducting genocide, even against Christians, and the WH admit it's now their strongest presence on the globe. Syria is the "magnet for extremists". Great! Why not demolish them there? How come instead, AQ are getting free weapons and cash that come from the USA? Because "Assad must go" is more important than fighting AQ. This proves the whole point is USA global agenda, not domestic security. I should hope you know in your heart that it's no longer about protecting Americans and that is just used as a BS excuse. Like the NSA, who are proven to be using their data for commercial purposes or for cracking down on activists.
You didn't read the part about being "secure in your persons, papers and effects". No doubt companies are in on it, either compelled or bribed or willing. But the government themselves directly snatch information. They even hack people. You are not secure in your information. It's the opposite. Your information has been given away without your knowledge or consent. That defies the fourth. That IS a right to privacy. "secure in persons papers and effects". Where in the Constitution does it say anything about an exemption to any rights based on where it happens? Nowhere! The Supreme Court even ruled this is not the case. And if what you are saying is true, can you tell me what the purpose of that amendment about indefinite detention to the 12 NDAA was for? Can you tell me why after a court rejected it, Obama went back to court to insist on this right? "No person" shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." That's Americans and foreigners alike, anywhere. There's no exemptions made, you are making up your own. And yes, targeting unarmed people violates multiple international laws, including the Hague, Genevas, etc. The only way to be an "unlawful combatant" is to be deemed such by a regularly constituted tribunal. Even Khaleid Sheikh Muhammed is not yet classed as an unlawful combatant. These laws are designed to prevent summarily labelling people to infringe their human rights. If Obama demolishes an alleged terrorist with a drone strike, what security need could there be to not specify the terrorist he killed? Surely the terrorists know which of them got killed. Obama uses triple-tap drone strikes. He hits the target, then waits a while, then hits the same spot again, killing medics and first responders and anyone who comes to help. He then strikes the funeral. You suppose that's legal? You suppose that is somehow keeping Americans safe? These policies endanger US lives by making more terrorists. How are we even identifying all these terrorists and plots, and how do we vet they are an imminent threat? Like in Yemen? There's hundreds of strikes. Realistically, you gotta think, these aren't ALL foiling plots against domestic Americans to keep them safe.
It's literally the argument from every statist when government actions are brought into question. "But who will build the roads?"
