Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 The memo does not define "recently" or "activities."
But murdering a bus driver and holding a little boy hostage probably fits the current definition. Before that it would have been Waco, but that was many Super Bowls ago. Case Law and "White Papers", totally unnecessary but conveniently re-established.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-05 08:04||
#2 Given that the Constitution gives the President executive power (art II sec 1) and CIC (art II sec 2)and given that the oath requires 'preserve and protect' (art II sec 1), there is at least a reasonable basis for this.
However, if there was some 'outside the WH' review of this by some judicial panel or some legislative/judicial panel, I would feel much better about it. Otherwise, what is the 'due process'?
Posted by lord garth 2013-02-05 10:30||
#3 Personally I would feelmore comfortable with this kind of legal determination if Georgie had his finger on the trigger instead of this pocket dictator and his cult of personality.
Kinda makes you wonder what kind of information they've been loading into the GPS systems at GM doesn't it?
Don't look for me to get an onboard navigation system in an american car as long as this Oligarch in in power.
Posted by Bill Clinton 2013-02-05 10:38||
#4 I don't have a problem with this if the American is:
A) Outside the territory controlled by the US
B) Actively helping a declared enemy of the US to attack US interests and personnel/civilians
C) Declared his allegiance with the enemy
In those cases I say the American chose his fate and bombs away!
Posted by DarthVader 2013-02-05 11:11||
#5 Well if you're planning on going crackers and the feds pass a phone into your bunker to conduct negotiations, don't set it on the shelf. Place it in an empty ammo can when not in use.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-05 11:16||
#6 I have a problem with this. 14th Amendment protects Americans' rights to due process.
If an American decides to join the other side and pick up a gun, then I have no problem if he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on a battlefield. Or else, if we get our mitts on him we can charge him with treason, try him and execute him.
But to drone-zap an American, specifically, not as part of a battle encounter, and without charging him? That's a slippery slope, and people like Obama and Holder are willing to slide a fair ways down.
Posted by Steve White 2013-02-05 11:17||
#7 I'd like to see a bipartisan finding required
Posted by Frank G 2013-02-05 11:20||
#8 Steve says,
That's a slippery slope, and people like Obama and Holder are willing to slide a fair ways down.
Zero and company are willing to slide ALL the way down that slope because the like what's at the bottom...absolute power.
Posted by AlanC 2013-02-05 11:33||
#9 Never mind how slippery that slope is. His Imperial Highness can do as he pleases.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-02-05 11:37||
#10 "His Imperial Highness can do as he pleases."
Only so long as the American people are happy to have the Saudis calling the shots. It doesn't have to be like that. Once upon a time our president would have bowed to no one, and certainly not a mass murdering tyrant.
Posted by ChuffingChuffChuff 2013-02-05 12:24||
#11 Speaking of another target for a drone zap...
Posted by DarthVader 2013-02-05 12:31||
#12 Just imagine the (feigned) outrage if this had been produced by the Bush administration.
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-02-05 16:50||
#13 You can drone zap Americans? That is a slippery slope. There is no due process other than what the President decides. Can Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be drone-zapped? How about Assad? Do they have more rights than Americans? Morsi?
Posted by JohnQC 2013-02-05 17:50||
#14 I didn't see much in all that regarding "collateral damage".
Posted by KBK 2013-02-05 18:04||
#15 I thought the due process was to eat a waffle for breakfast and peruse a target menu a la cart.
Posted by swksvolFF 2013-02-05 18:12||
#16 "Do [Ahmadinejad and Assad] have more rights than Americans?"
To this Administration? Of course, John.
Bambi never met a murderous dictator whose ass he didn't want to kiss. >:-(
Posted by Barbara 2013-02-05 20:11||
#17 Only kiss? You underestimate our esteemed president.
Posted by CrazyFool 2013-02-05 21:47||
#18 well I certainly hope my AmEx travel insurance covers this sort of thing when I'm overseas. Wouldn't want to become a smoking greasy spot - and not get a handsome settlement :-)
Posted by Raider 2013-02-05 21:52||
#19 So IOW, in 2013 the DoJ, Obama + AG Eric Holder finally gives Penn State some legal after-the-fact-is-before-the-fact "protection".
[WAYNE'S WORLD "Thumbs Up" here].
AL BUNDY IS NOT SHOCKED, HE TELLS YA, HE'S NOT SHOCKED!
OTOH pragmatically 'tis NOT good news for me given my past relationship wid Whitney-fan OBL, e.g. Afghan War.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-02-05 22:02||