Video: Obama admin discussing targeting of American in al-Qaeda “at highest levels”

posted at 10:41 am on February 10, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Get ready for the big debate again over the need to act against al-Qaeda threats and the need to afford Americans their civil rights. The last time the US targeted an American for a lethal military attack, it was Anwar al-Awlaki, who was repeatedly targeted and finally killed in a drone strike despite his status as a US citizen — and as was another American, Samir Khan, an AQ propagandist. CNN reports today that the Obama administration is debating at its “highest levels” whether to launch another military strike against an American member of al-Qaeda:

The Obama administration is in high-level discussions about staging an operation to kill an American citizen involved with al Qaeda and suspected of plotting attacks against the United States, a senior U.S. official tells CNN.

The official, who declined to disclose any specific information about the target or the country the suspect presides in, was confirming information first reported by The Associated Press.

The debate about whether to undertake a mission is being held with various commanders in the U.S. military, as well as the U.S. national security agencies. The discussion centers on the risk involved and the importance of the target.

The controversy over the use of military strikes on Americans reached a peak last year, when Rand Paul staged a Senate filibuster until the White House offered a position as to whether it could conduct such an attack on American soil. (The eventual answer: probably not.) Not too long after that, though. Eric Holder revealed that the US had targeted and killed two other Americans who were suspected of being active members of the al-Qaeda network.

Expect this to raise the question yet again. Should Americans who are suspected of joining al-Qaeda — an enemy named specifically in the Congressionally-approved authorization for use of military force — get due process in civilian courts and have an immunity from drone attack? Or better yet, why use drones rather than just make attempts first to capture the Americans in question, and get intel from them instead of killing them outright? For my money, I’d say that any American who joins al-Qaeda is signing up for warfare and not law enforcement, but that path also has significant risks, at least theoretically, for the rest of us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But is he a terrorist?

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Way to go democrats. No waterboarding. Instead just make them explode into a mist of red.

Ignoramuses.

TX-96 on February 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Hitler and Stalin laugh their dead heads off, from the graves.

It didn’t take that long and by a so-called liberal, go figure!

“We always knew they were like us” — Hitler/Stalin

Yes, liftists, you are always fascist sozi thugs, never truly liberal or progressive.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Who needs a stinkin’ detention facility in Cuba when you can just kill people with drones?

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM

What’s the over/under on how long before the list of AQ affiliated American Citizens includes Darrell Issa and/or Ted Cruz? You know, Issa’s paternal grandparents were Lebanese . . . A bit suspicious, don’t you think?

SoRight on February 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM

“We said that we would go after al Qaeda, and they are on the run and bin Laden is dead.”

“on the path to defeat”

“I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.”

Electrongod on February 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Anwar al-Awlaki publicly renounced his citizenship many times. His father also relayed the messages about this.
if anything it was his son who was the citizen killed.
much like elections have consequences; renouncing your citizenship should have consequences too.
I shed no tears over his death.

dmacleo on February 10, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Code Pink…Bueller? Bueller?

right2bright on February 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Another story presstitute Diane Sawyer will ignore as she is too busy researching cute puppy behavior, cold fronts in January and money-saving tips…

hillsoftx on February 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM

But is he a terrorist?

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM

One of those “bad folks” Baracky talks about.

fogw on February 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM

First they said the American citizen was on foreign soil and deserved to be ‘droned’, and we stood by and did nothing… then they said the American citizen was a ‘terrorist’ and deserved to be ‘droned’ and we stood by did nothing… then they said the American citizen was a terrorist in Waco and deserved to be ‘droned’… well you know the story.

RedManBlueState on February 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM

You Track’Em, Will Whack’Em!!!!!!

The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program
By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald
10 Feb 2014, 12:03 AM EST
*************************

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

NSA surveillance programs leaked
55m
—-
Digital magazine created by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, launches; ‘Our focus in this very initial stage will be overwhelmingly on the NSA story’ – @the_intercept
read more on firstlook.org
===========================

https://twitter.com/the_intercept

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 1:59 AM

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM

The ‘Merican Muslim ought to renounce his citizenship, then reapply as one of those new breed of safe Muslim immigrants, those with teeny tiny ties to terrorism.

BL@KBIRD on February 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM

AP Politics ‏@AP_Politics 1h

American terror suspect possibly targeted for drone attack, reports @KimberlyDozier. http://apne.ws/1kvJCD6

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-suspect-possibly-targeted-drone-attack
=========================================================================

Online:

Policy and procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the U.S.: http://1.usa.gov/1dy7de4

U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism

Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities
********************************************************************

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2013.05.23_fact_sheet_on_ppg.pdf

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 11:04 AM

If they have evidence he is a terrorist have a hearing to revoke his citizenship. If he is found guilty revoke his citizenship and the issue is resolved. If he is found not guilty then the evidence was too weak to authorize “droning” anyway.

Seems an easy fix…

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

You can’t summarily execute American Citizens. There is law and due process all citizens are entitled to.

This is why we have to be careful about who is allowed to get citizenship. And there needs to be a procedure to Remove citizenship for those who make war against the United States.

ConstantineXI on February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

AP Politics ‏@AP_Politics 1h

American terror suspect possibly targeted for drone attack, reports @KimberlyDozier. http://apne.ws/1kvJCD6

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-suspect-possibly-targeted-drone-attack
=========================================================================

Online:

Policy and procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the U.S.: http://1.usa.gov/1dy7de4

U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism

Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities
********************************************************************

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2013.05.23_fact_sheet_on_ppg.pdf

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Should Americans who are suspected of joining al-Qaeda — an enemy named specifically in the Congressionally-approved authorization for use of military force — get due process in civilian courts and have an immunity from drone attack?


Simple answer- no.

Under current law and statutes if you are on the battlefield involved in armed action against the United States- you are no longer afforded the protection of citizenship. See 8 U.S. Code § 1481, as one example.

It is unclear to me why there is so much vexation over this issue. This isn’t about launching a Hellfire against your neighbors house in the LA suburbs. It’s about treasonous elements actively plotting to kill Americans who are hiding overseas.

In that case, the last sound you should hear is either the clicking of JDAM fins as it tries to get precisely on target or the sound of an incoming AGM 114.

Marcus Traianus on February 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Way to go democrats. No waterboarding. Instead just make them explode into a mist of red.

Ignoramuses.

TX-96 on February 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Exactly. Obama has a callous disregard for human life and doesn’t want to deal with Gitmo. And yet Bush was the one who got raked over the coals by the bleeding hearts.

Fenris on February 10, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Wait a tic,……maybes this American was only carrying water for
AQ!!!!

The Associated Press ‏@AP 20h

Administration: People who have given “limited” support to terrorists no longer automatically barred from US: http://apne.ws/MCJ2VR
===========================================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-easing-immigration-rule-terrorist-support

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM

So, why are they leaking this? Do they want someone to tell them no?

PattyJ on February 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-easing-immigration-rule-terrorist-support

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Boneheaded move by a boneheaded administration.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM

karma

ConservativePartyNow on February 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM

For my money, I’d say that any American who joins al-Qaeda is signing up for warfare and not law enforcement, but that path also has significant risks, at least theoretically, for the rest of us. (From the Article)

Indeed it does, because without due process- there is no justice or respect for the rule of law. The state of emergency declared by G.W. Bush have not been relaxed, even under this supposed ‘peace maker’. The NDAA consistently gets approved and passed. Indefinite detention is still practiced and that there should raise questions of if our 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments still mean anything at all.
I can see the implications of this. I warned years ago about the slippery slope drones can put us in. I know these tools can solve a lot of problems (e.g. farming, graze studies, security) but the thought of a weaponized Predator silently monitoring everything above me doesn’t exactly instill peace of mind. Administrations change and it might not be a good thing for people in fly over country.
You’re right Ed, this is something we really need to understand before goin’ in whole hog. Thanks for the article.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Chill people. It’s not like we’re tapping the guy’s phone like Bush did. That would be totally reprehensible.

Chris of Rights on February 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

If they have evidence he is a terrorist have a hearing to revoke his citizenship. If he is found guilty revoke his citizenship and the issue is resolved. If he is found not guilty then the evidence was too weak to authorize “droning” anyway.

Seems an easy fix…

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

That’s a great idea! I would add that the accused has the right to defend themselves as is done daily in courts, nation wide. That is a Constitutional right. We must be careful of bending laws to justify terror alerts. Benjamin knew where that leads.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM

“I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.”

Electrongod on February 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM

President Obama was 100% correct in this statement. Decimate mean 10% (it does not mean annihilate, as some mistaken use it). I suspect that 90% of al Qaeda is still functional.

Walter L. Newton on February 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM

This is actually an easy one. The courts have no role, as they have no special knowledge about these matters. The president and congress could easily set up a joint committee to oversee and approve strikes on citizens abroad. It could be made up of an equal number of members from both houses and parties who already have top security clearances. But of course our president is not willing to work with anyone, and our congress is filled with cowards who want to be able to complain while doing everything possible to avoid actually having to take responsibility for anything. Ugh!

fastphil101 on February 10, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Or better yet, why use drones rather than just make attempts first to capture the Americans in question, and get intel from them instead of killing them outright? For my money, I’d say that any American who joins al-Qaeda is signing up for warfare and not law enforcement, but that path also has significant risks, at least theoretically, for the rest of us.

The first part is a strawman.

Ever been on a battlefield Ed? Do you really want to risk the lives of good men to capture some terrorist simply because he was once an…American.

The fact is that war sucks. And in the process of conducting war we make assessments every day about kill, capture and intelligence value vs. risk.

Frankly, I don’t want one tangential factor, that is the target is American, being used as some type of trump card which increase the risk factor above and normal intelligent, proven process.

Regarding the last part- that is theoretical rumination designed to distract from the first part.

We are taking action and operating based on a set of know facts and circumstances. None of those includes a domestic scenario. That’s a distraction and one that carries with it much more substantive legal, constitutional and circumstantial considerations.

Marcus Traianus on February 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Chill people. It’s not like we’re tapping the guy’s phone like Bush did. That would be totally reprehensible.

Chris of Rights on February 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

By all acounts, left and right, that Obama has doubled down on drone strikes and smackdown on whistle blowers (more than all previous presidents combined) by using the 1917 Espionage Act.
Under Wilson’s rule, you could be imprisoned for merely protesting our involvement in WW1.
It’s been my observation since fighting a long time ago that both parties are perfectly fine with conquer and occupation not for ‘spreading democracy’ as much as resource plunder. And it makes enemies, where ever we venture.
You must walk in another’s moccasins before you know where they have been. If we ended these military adventures, imagine putting those funds into improving our own lives and not the MIC. (A Republican President warned us against this).
War is a Racket (USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America’s Most Decorated Soldier

General Butler received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Twice, with Brevet. An Army Distinguished Service Medal, A Navy Distinguished Service Medal and the French Order of the Black Star.
He tried to tell folks but it doesn’t seem to stick. That’s a problem.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM

If they have evidence he is a terrorist have a hearing to revoke his citizenship. If he is found guilty revoke his citizenship and the issue is resolved. If he is found not guilty then the evidence was too weak to authorize “droning” anyway.

Seems an easy fix…

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

I don’t know how easy it would be – but it would be a fix.

First – you have to give Congress the authority to “strip” citizenship in the same manner they do impeachments. This might require a constitutional amendment – I’m not sure – which makes it kind of difficult.

Like an “impeachment” … the accused would have the right to show up and defend himself – or send a lawyer in his stead to defend him.

If he is found “guilty” by Congress then he loses his citizenship – let the drones rain down on him.

If not – he must be captured and tried in a court of law the way all American citizens are – to which they are entitled by the Constitution.

Our constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens – but it DOES to citizens … even those accused of “terror”.

HondaV65 on February 10, 2014 at 12:07 PM

blink on February 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM

It’s certainly something to consider. Thanks, blink.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-easing-immigration-rule-terrorist-support

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Boneheaded move by a boneheaded administration.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM

BiteOwl:Yup,..it defines the DemTard Party!!

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM

The rooftop SAMs will keep that drone at least 15 miles from the Whitehouse.

WryTrvllr on February 10, 2014 at 12:19 PM

If they have evidence he is a terrorist have a hearing to revoke his citizenship. If he is found guilty revoke his citizenship and the issue is resolved. If he is found not guilty then the evidence was too weak to authorize “droning” anyway.

Seems an easy fix…

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

If he was born here, his citizenship cannot be revoked – even if he takes up arms against America.
The SCOTUS has ruled that someone’s citizenship-by-birth can’t be taken by the government.
He can renounce his citizenship, but it can’t be taken from him.

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM

What if the drone strike merely wounds him, and as he crawls away he slips into a ditch, face down, and slowly drowns?

Torture? Hmmmm………

BobMbx on February 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM

If he is found “guilty” by Congress then he loses his citizenship – let the drones rain down on him.

If not – he must be captured and tried in a court of law the way all American citizens are – to which they are entitled by the Constitution.

Our constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens – but it DOES to citizens … even those accused of “terror”.

HondaV65 on February 10, 2014 at 12:07 PM

I agree with this sentiment except the first sentence. Congress’ first obligation is ‘to support and defend the Constitution’. They’re not powered to change the laws, accorded by the U.S. Constitution unless the Supreme Court rules in their favor. I stand by the ‘Rule of Law’, as weak as it is.
And due process of the law, therein.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM……

to continue…The government can, of course declare him an “enemy combatant” and drone the hell out of him. On the battlefield, anyone with the enemy forces is fair game. Nobody’s going to ask to see his passport before they tap him.

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM

blink on February 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Become a bit more familiar with the law and process before trying to build an army of illogical strawmen.

There are very fundamental answers and procedures to what you’ve posed. Those exist today and are available for anyone who cares to actually research and understand them.

Notwithstanding that, there are also individual considerations to be explored, and decisions made with the facts of each unique scenario. Those are required to be backed by intelligence, proof and are subject to review by a court as to materiality.

Marcus Traianus on February 10, 2014 at 12:27 PM

BiteOwl:Yup,..it defines the DemTard Party!!

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM

BiteOwl? LOL, now that’s funny! :-)

If he was born here, his citizenship cannot be revoked – even if he takes up arms against America.
The SCOTUS has ruled that someone’s citizenship-by-birth can’t be taken by the government.
He can renounce his citizenship, but it can’t be taken from him.

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM

We have yet to learn if he was born here. However, natural born or not he can be tried for Treason. If found guilty the execution method (if that was the sentence) could be “droning”.

I was unaware of any SCOTUS ruling that prevented revoking citizenship. As HondaV65 stated, maybe not so easy. Certainly worth looking into though.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 12:33 PM

If he was born here, his citizenship cannot be revoked – even if he takes up arms against America.
The SCOTUS has ruled that someone’s citizenship-by-birth can’t be taken by the government.
He can renounce his citizenship, but it can’t be taken from him.

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Under our 1st Amendment Rights, you can even suggest revolution, but now you see all efforts to the contrary- that we must accept everything we are told. That chills a free press and people critical of this government’s policies. IOW’s, shaddup, we got this.
I don’t know where you fall on Edward Snowden’s plight, but revoking his passport midair was against all policy by Nations all over as being a violation of a person’s rights to seek asylum from oppressive governments. I know people think that’s traitorous, but considering how more authoritarian this governments been lately, it was the only viable venue. Even Daniel Ellsberg admits in today’s climate- he’d have bugged out too.
This big brother thing is becoming a real problem for all of us. Now’s the time to be less compliant to intrusion.
Thanks, Solaratov.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM

The NSA’s role

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

0bama didn’t finish his sentence:

“I got a pen, a phone and a drone.”

LegendHasIt on February 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM

0bama didn’t finish his sentence:

“I got a pen, a phone and a drone.”

LegendHasIt on February 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Plus somebody in his administration can probably find the Rotunda on Google Map. :-)

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Notwithstanding that, there are also individual considerations to be explored, and decisions made with the facts of each unique scenario. Those are required to be backed by intelligence, proof and are subject to review by a court as to materiality.

Marcus Traianus on February 10, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Sounds like you implicitly trust the government than what’s due. There is no transparent due course in deciding which American Citizens are deemed are liquidated and who’s not. That’s a slope I don’t want to slide down. If that means a few of the guilty get off, well, that’s the way the system is set up- proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or they walk.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I look forward to just how ‘adversarial’ this website will be, but I have hope! (I’m with you on Edward Snowden, btw).

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Because we can multi-thread thoughts.

obama doesn’t call the bad ones “terrorists”, but then lauds himself on making the ants eat them, in the Americans’ case, illegally.

Of course terrorism must be fought, but not in Adolf-fashion.

If they kill Snowden he will be a sacrificial lamb for freedom/liberty.

Cheers!

p.s. comments at the end of the article are very good too. Spoofs love/hate the site :)

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Obama defender claiming civil rights intrusions are good.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Leftists are such hypocritical weasels.

Imagine if the preezie were a R. They’d be spitting melted steel.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:07 PM


or
[URL=http://s713.photobucket.com/user/Napewaste/media/WintrollPB.jpg.html][IMG]http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww138/Napewaste/WintrollPB.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:07 PM

http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww138/Napewaste/WintrollPB.jpg
Finally.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Nape

Try this.

1. Be on your comment page you wish to comment on.
2 In a separate window or tab open up the page you wish to link.
3 Stroke copy the url link in the address header of the page you want to copy.
4 Go back to your comment page having already typed in your comment or if not type in your comment. High light the word or words you want the link to be.
5 Just above your comment box is a little button with a blue word that says link. Click that
6 A link box will pop up, it will have a http: already in it. just delete it.
7 Paste in the url you had copied into that link box hit okay.

Bmore on August 1, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Leftists are such hypocritical weasels.

Imagine if the preezie were a R. They’d be spitting melted steel.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:07 PM

They hate Glenn Greenwald, now. They used to cheer him like a Roman Gladiator, now, not so much.
Yeah, it’s very hypocritical but thats what cheerleaders do.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:12 PM

After a little quick research I found that a natural born citizen CAN have his/her citizenship revoked against his/her will in 8 different cases – One example is if he/she is convicted of treason.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Duly noted, Thanks.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM

On Greenwald/Snowden they are of split minds.

I meant they are hypocrites on topic, the droning of American citizens, without trials.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM

OOOPS forgot to put this in.

If he was born here, his citizenship cannot be revoked – even if he takes up arms against America.
The SCOTUS has ruled that someone’s citizenship-by-birth can’t be taken by the government.
He can renounce his citizenship, but it can’t be taken from him.

Solaratov on February 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM

After a little quick research I found that a natural born citizen CAN have his/her citizenship revoked against his/her will in 8 different cases – One example is if he/she is convicted of treason.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM

You’re one of the reasons I decided to join this blog. You’ve been a long time outspoken critic of those that would defend this illegal practice against our 4th Amendment rights. I decided that’d I’d join you.
I’m all in for privacy. Cheers.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:22 PM

After a little quick research I found that a natural born citizen CAN have his/her citizenship revoked against his/her will in 8 different cases – One example is if he/she is convicted of treason.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM

And who would these convicted people be? I know they’ve been tried, judged and sentenced by the speculative media, but by what courts? There is such a thing as judgement by ‘Absentia’ but that hasn’t been decided, as of yet. There’s compelling arguments against such procedures.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM

On Greenwald/Snowden they are of split minds.

I meant they are hypocrites on topic, the droning of American citizens, without trials.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I’m interested on what you’re trying to say. How exactly are they of split minds? One had an overriding fear that the security state was overreaching and the other one- with wider media access- decided to tell his story. One picked a fearless journalist and the journalist felt it was worthy of note and reported on it. How do they differ? Thanks.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:44 PM

And who would these convicted people be? I know they’ve been tried, judged and sentenced by the speculative media, but by what courts? There is such a thing as judgement by ‘Absentia’ but that hasn’t been decided, as of yet. There’s compelling arguments against such procedures.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM

These convicted people would be persons such as the one this thread is about. A person they (our current administration) are currently considering “droning”.

If they are natural born citizens they should not be “droned” unless they have been convicted in court of treason, following the rule of law.

They have every right to defend themselves or appoint someone to defend them if they refuse to defend themselves. Seems straight forward enough and relieves the Executive Branch of too much authority to act unilaterally.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Off Topic: I must say my shout out for Allah Pundit. Now you may not always agree with him but he does make you think. I’ve admired his independence the first time I read his diatribes. Please don’t suffer from ‘Crainio Concretus’ in your processing of what’s goin’ on. Thank you.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 1:55 PM

They have every right to defend themselves or appoint someone to defend them if they refuse to defend themselves. Seems straight forward enough and relieves the Executive Branch of too much authority to act unilaterally.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM

I’m taking the devil’s advocate here, but Anwar Alwarki’s father appealed this illegal act and was ignored.–

The question today is “As a nation, how should we feel about our President determined to kill American Citizens without due-process of our Laws?” What if we were marching on Washington, DC because Obama refuses to leave office after a terrible defeat in 2012 and he unleashes DRONES on us? Tell me PATRIOT, in the mind of OBAMA, what is the difference? I am not saying ‘your mind,’ I specifically am referring to HIS mind; Obama. Here is justification in the mind of Obama, “In Sept 2011, I deliberately killed a United States Citizen in Yemen, and there was no out-crying for DUE PROCESS for that citizen! So, why not kill a bunch who is trying to throw me out of office because they too are trying to also take down America.” Can you NOT see this from his point of view?

Do not take me wrong, getting rid of anyone trying to do harm to America is a very good thing. What bothers me is how we get rid of them should depend upon who they are; or does it matter? I am asking you America, tell me, why should you NOT care that this citizen was deliberately silenced of his 1st Amendment rights? Again, tell me why he deserved to be executed without “due-process” in support of our US Constitutional Laws? He was a United States Citizen; more so than Obama.

We should be very careful who we authorize to JDAMM. It could turn out very bad for dissonance in this country. As as veteran, I know well the sayin’ “I may not agree with your opinion but I’ll fight to the death defending your right to say so“.
To protect against enemies, foreign or domestic.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obama-killing-us-constitution/#VyYqKx97UAHxVqGk.99

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 2:12 PM

US drone program
1m
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney neither confirms nor denies reports US considering drone kill on suspected American terrorist abroad, @markknoller reports
see original on twitter.com
============================

Tweets All / No replies

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 4m

Carney repeated Pres Obama pledge that no American abroad should be targeted w/o due process, but neither should US citizenship be a shield.
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 6m

Carney neither confirms nor denies reports US considering drone kill on suspected American terrorist abroad.
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 10m

At press briefing, @PressSec reiterates Pres Obama won’t “pay ransom” in order to get House Republicans to approve Debt Limit increase.

canopfor on February 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM

If they are natural born citizens they should not be “droned” unless they have been convicted in court of treason, following the rule of law.

They have every right to defend themselves or appoint someone to defend them if they refuse to defend themselves. Seems straight forward enough and relieves the Executive Branch of too much authority to act unilaterally.

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Uh oh. A ‘court of treason’? Sounds awfully like a Star Chamber. If witches sink, that proves they’re innocent?
I don’t know that all of this military adventurism isn’t about nothing but a land grab for resources and not the ‘spreading democracy’ that has been touted by both war hawk parties.
Thanks (and no thanks) from the internet- folks world wide are starting to see us as the last world empire. That usually doesn’t end too well, historically speaking.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM

ConservativePartyNow on February 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Meh, steep penalty for unsuccessfully negotiating the learning curve.

Tough break.

socalcon on February 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Meh, steep penalty for unsuccessfully negotiating the learning curve.

Tough break.

socalcon on February 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I wonder how you’d feel if your world crashed into nothing over the recession of 2007. I’m a biker, welder, engineer/designer and small business owner. I took a big risk only to see banks holding us hostage upon their bailout. Yes, there’s socialism in this country- to the rich. WE carry the tax burden and yet people defend Jaimie Dimon getting a 75% raise while paying billions in fines.
I don’t ever want to be that cruel to those that had no say whatsoever about the results of a bipartisan deal to mess over the American worker force.
I think you suggest we are lazy and I totally disagree. Our jobs our gone. That’s not our fault. You can thank offshoring internationalists for that endeavor.
I don’t happen to worship the rich. I don’t even envy them. I pity them.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Uh oh. A ‘court of treason’? Sounds awfully like a Star Chamber. If witches sink, that proves they’re innocent?
I don’t know that all of this military adventurism isn’t about nothing but a land grab for resources and not the ‘spreading democracy’ that has been touted by both war hawk parties.
Thanks (and no thanks) from the internet- folks world wide are starting to see us as the last world empire. That usually doesn’t end too well, historically speaking.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Willfully misinterpreting the meaning of the statement, horrible grammar on my part (I plead guilty), or just really feeling ornery today?

Whichever, I’m out for a Dr. appt. for awhile. I’ll try to catch up when I get back. :-)

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I feel ornery most every day but I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you meant. We either have the ‘rule of law’ or we don’t. Glenn Greenwald wrote a book- “And Justice and Liberty for Some”. It explains better what I could say in one thousand years. “It’s a big club, and you ain[‘t in it”
That goes for both parties, regardless of what you’ve been ‘told’.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 3:01 PM

I know exactly where they should send their drones.

Given the flouting of laws this administration is prone to one wonders what kind of American citizens they will drone next. You can make a case for the terrorist in a foreign country but how long will it be before they decide one of us is a legal target.

crankyoldlady on February 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Forget the Al-Qaeda Terrorists. Rank Amateurs. We need to start sending drone attacks against those horrible tea-party terrorists. The white house can start tracking them and every time they leave the county, schedule a drone attack!

PrettyD_Vicious on February 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Uh oh. A ‘court of treason’? Sounds awfully like a Star Chamber. If witches sink, that proves they’re innocent?
I don’t know that all of this military adventurism isn’t about nothing but a land grab for resources and not the ‘spreading democracy’ that has been touted by both war hawk parties.
Thanks (and no thanks) from the internet- folks world wide are starting to see us as the last world empire. That usually doesn’t end too well, historically speaking.

Nape-wa-ste on February 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM

What I meant was convicted of treason in court. Obviously I could have stated it better, but after a quick review I thought the meaning was clear enough. I will strive to be more concise in the future. :-)

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 7:59 PM

As I recall, Al Qaeda declared war on the United States therefore any citizen joining them forfeits their citizenship. So what is the problem here. Winning the hearts and minds of the animals that are trying to kill us, has not worked so why keep trying.

savage24 on February 10, 2014 at 8:19 PM

As I recall, Al Qaeda declared war on the United States therefore any citizen joining them forfeits their citizenship. So what is the problem here. Winning the hearts and minds of the animals that are trying to kill us, has not worked so why keep trying.

savage24 on February 10, 2014 at 8:19 PM

On general principle I agree, however by the letter of the law revoking citizenship requires joining the military of a foreign country. Al Qaeda – so far – is not another country. Perhaps revisions to the law are needed?

NiteOwl on February 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM

For my money, I’d say that any American who joins al-Qaeda is signing up for warfare and not law enforcement, but that path also has significant risks, at least theoretically, for the rest of us. (From the Article)

Slippery sloap. Where does it end? We are (or at least used to be) a nation of laws.

Current President and future King speaking here I “suspect” this guy an American citizen is assisting Al-Qaeda. He has hidden in the woods along the Canadian border. We need to bring him to justice. I have therefor authorized lethal force to be used to prevent him from getting away into Canada. I have very strong evidence he is guilty.

Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide? Who will even know? I am sure Eric Holder will look after the rights of all involved like he has so well in the past.

PSD_Steve on February 11, 2014 at 7:34 AM