But hey, that could mean some inbred son of a harlot politician got held responsible for declaring another pointless war, now wouldn’t it?

which means the person has no right to the refuge of American laws.

Yes, but the 5th Amendment says that “no person….shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process…”

“No person” not just US citizens.

So, even if they lose their citizenship and become “outlaws” they don’t lose all of their due process rights. As I understand it.

The question is what due process rights do they have? You say a “review of evidence”. By whom? A court?

The issue, for me, is whether the Executive Branch – and it alone – can make these decisions.

SteveMG on February 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Actually, the Fifth amendment also answers your question regarding the who and the procedure;

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Note: the only exception are people in service to the U.S. in the military or militia, not traitors.

So essentially, it’s not a Drone’s Court we want, but a Grand Jury review of the evidence against a suspected Terrorist before they may be put on that Kill List Obama so Proudly Hails.

Obama doesn’t want official “war” because he’d be much more accountable to Congress. Congress doesn’t want war because they’d be more responsible.

If there is no backbone to declare war then shut up and stop killing people.

If there is reason for war, as I believe there is against Al Qaida, then be transparent with your goals, and the state of progress regarding the same–that is, be accountable to Congress and the public.

Do we need a court to vet drone strikes?

No, but I think we need a vet to court drone strikes. To give this power to an anti-military, never served, marxist coward is unconscionable.

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 12:41 PM

I’m lactose-intolerant so no, I don’t like ice cream.

which means the person has no right to the refuge of American laws.

Yes, but the 5th Amendment says that “no person….shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process…”

“No person” not just US citizens.

So, even if they lose their citizenship and become “outlaws” they don’t lose all of their due process rights. As I understand it.

The question is what due process rights do they have? You say a “review of evidence”. By whom? A court?

The issue, for me, is whether the Executive Branch – and it alone – can make these decisions.

The argument that it is too much work to do in order to defend us can go all the way down the chain of social activities.

Murder? Just shoot them, no need for capture and trial.
Assault? Just shoot them, no need for capture and trial.
Jay Walking? Just shoot them, no need for capture and trial.

Not only that, but just hand out that same power to every citizen. If they want to off someone out on the street, no need to ask them why they did, just trust that they had a good reason to do it.

Oh, wait, I think keeping citizens from killing each other off was part of the reason we implement government. To protect our God given rights. So, why is it that we can just disregard this reason for the existence of government? We cannot, for when it can kill its citizens without regard to due process and ensure that the citizens are rightly denied their right to life, then it is no longer a government in place to defend our rights, but a government intent to deny our rights. Being good takes effort, at least providing a proper open and challengeable process forces the government to uphold its reason for existence, to protect our rights, the paramount one being our life.

We already have a process in place in the law to address this problem. The process calls for the State Department to act on the revocation of citizenship.

This requires it be announced along with an allowance of time for the person to show cause why it should not be revoked usually with a requirement to surrender to American authorities. Then a determination is made either with a review of the evidence or a trial held, in this case for treason. If the determination is made for revocation, he’s become what’s called an outlaw, which means the person has no right to the refuge of American laws.

The current law might need some tweaking to solve some problems but the procedure is already there.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I had kind of assumed something like that existed, but never really looked into it.