Drone Strikes on Americans OK (Page 2)

Killing me.  HA! Funny thing is that Attorneys are some of the best at telling Lawyer jokes.

But then it would cease to be a drone.  It would be a Manned Aerial Vehicle.  Kamikazee style...

Technically, we're only leasing that soil from Cuba.

Let them run across the minefield around Gitmo.  Most of the mines are gone by now... I think...

As soon as they clear the fence Boom!!!

I don't know if Gitmo is in that same case.  It's an adversarial acquisition at this point isn't it? 

It was a perpetual lease which can only be terminated if both parties agree.  And it's rather cheap, like a couple thousand a year

Those are the best kind of deals.  The US should keep it even when Cuba opens up and real estate prices go through the roof.  They could lease space for resorts on Gitmo.

Just move here and you'll be safe.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/05/city-in-virginia-becomes-first-to-pass-anti-drone-legislation-

These are attacks carried out abroad. But it is still B.S. to me. Either I am a citizen afforded my constitutional rights, or I am not. "IF" the Federal government lawyers came up with some loop hole as to how they can justify executing an American citizen without due process and not violate a plethora of laws... then it needs to be sealed. As an American citizen, I do not want my Government to have such power.

The Constitution means something... or it means nothing. 

To add on to that, is this because it is done by a drone, remotely, and not face to face, ala James Bond?

He was British...

I have no knowledge of an assassination of an American Citizen by the US Government...

Right, that's what I'm getting at.  Who's to say it HASN"T happened in the past?  I'm not saying that makes it ok, I'm honestly curious if it has happened in the past, and if it has, would we even have known about it.  Or will ever know about it, for that matter.  I'm thinking during the height of the cold war.

Murder of a US citizen by an official of the US government not new. Murdering an US citizen impunity, in secret, and with no questioning of the evidence is...

Are you sure?

I am sure your question is leading, but here it goes...

I am sure this is the first time that the executive branch of government has officially declared that the 5th amendment doesn't apply them.

Again, it doesn't make it any better, but in my opinion, the only thing new about this is that it was written down.

Read about the rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge.

That is a very big only. 

At least when it was unofficial there was someone up the chain of command that kind of thought this might be overstepping their Constitutional authority and they better keep it under wraps. 

I don't know the whole story, but the Wiki says he killed a Marshall before the ROE were written. 

 But the ROE said:

1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another

#1 was particularly bad.  Government agents were given the green light to kill someone on his own private property just because he's holding a weapon - not necessarily threatening anyone with it.

Wikipedia: "Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional."

I am still trying to figure out how a ten month old child can be considered a weapon.  I guess Vicki Weaver opening the door for their daughter to get inside while holding their baby looked very threatening through a sniper scope.

I am not suggesting I agree with the drone strikes, but the government does not need a loophole. 

Even though you are a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, if you point a gun at a police officer, they can use deadly force without a warrant, arrest, or a trial.  If you present an immediate threat, they can execture you.  Nothing new there.

What the government is arguing with the drones is that senior al-Qa'ida members believe to be involved in planning attacks on the U.S. present an immediate threat and can be exectued, regardless whether or not they are U.S. citizens.  The government isn't suggesting the constitution doesn't apply to the subjects of a drone attack, just that they present an immediate threat, and if they can't be captured, they can be neutralized.

Has the US officially declared war against al-Qaida and are the members of al-Qaida defined as enemy combatants?

They have declared war against terrorism, and al-qaida has been defined officially as a terrorist group, so I suppose the answer would be yes to both questions.