Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

TheBlaze TV

Are Drone Strikes on American Citizens Constitutional?

Feb. 5, 2013 7:04pm Christopher Santarelli

In March of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech generally outlining and endorsing the legal justification for the use of drones to kill Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.” Shortly after the election last November a striking-yet quickly pushed under the rug–report came out that the Obama administration had hastily put together a “rules of engagement” manual for a potential Romney administration as they relate to the president’s extensive use of drones strikes in countries that harbor terrorists.

The issue of drone attacks and the constitutionality of the Obama administration unilaterally deciding on the killing of Americans has come up in the news again, as a 16-page confidential Justice Department memo was revealed Monday that says the U.S. government is authorized to order the killing of any American citizen who is believed to be a “senior operational” leader of al Qaeda or “an associated force,” regardless of whether that person poses an immediate national security threat.

To many, the memo is concerning to say the least. It’s language is loose and general, and gives the executive branch seemingly limitless power to kill Americans. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe panel unloaded on the coverage of and reaction to the administration’s use of drones and executing Americans, during Monday ‘s show. Mediate reports:

An “absolute mess” and “frightening” were the descriptors that immediately emerged from the panel. When dealing with these types of threats, Harold Ford, Jr. argued, “we have to make at times very messy and sometimes uncomfortable and oftentimes questionable decisions.” But now Democrats should look back at how they questioned the Bush administration’s tactics.

“If this was happening, and his name was Bush, I think there’d be a lot of criticism coming at this president,” he said.

“If George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped,” Scarborough added.

“I think it would have been certainly a huge controversy that would have erupted,” Mika Brzezinski responded, noting that the issue now is how many questions the administration will face about it.

On ‘Real News‘ Tuesday the panel discussed the legal and executive overreach implications of the Justice Department memo reported Monday, and if Obama and his supporters are hypocritical for getting behind this policy given their criticisms of the Bush administration.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (13)

GuruMeditation
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:40am
No.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
XinTX
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:20am
So, what if they want to use drone strikes against US citizens on US soil?

And please, can one person talk at a time? If I wanted to see people talk over each other I’d watch Fox News.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
battles
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:11am
The question is actually: Does Obama or Any Democrat Even Care if Drone Strikes on American Citizens is Constitutional?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RabbiDRJerkins
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:18pm
  Shalom,
  The answer is no, they do not care one bit about the Constitution. If they did, the executions for treason would have already cleaned out our government.
  
  Report this comment
fedlibertarian
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:26am
Police state anyone? They are tearing apart military cohesion, by forcing in gays and women. They are using vets with ‘ptsd’ or whatever you want to call it, be it trauma from battle or trauma from mind control experiments conducted on our troops (look it up), and marginalizing that population while heightening the state of fear to a pitch where society will voluntarily give up its weapons, its privacy, and finally all the illusion of freedom we have left, because there wasn’t much to begin with. Just wait. These vet attacks are just starting. Soon any physician will have the right to detain a vet they suspect is ‘unstable’. Recall the Homeland Security Department report that warned of terrorism by vets? This is a planned and coordinated campaign to turn society against the military so that it can be used against US in the future. Mark my words.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- danger08
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:47am
  This memo, coupled with everything else they’ve done, is an indicator of what to expect. Warrantless wire tapping, indefinite detention with no due process, killing on mere suspicion, military excercises in urban areas and the mass purchase of ammo. Hunker down, somethings coming…
  
  Report this comment
teapartyconservatism
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:11am
Our constitutional republic requires vigilance for citizens to retain rights and self governance. A lack of vigilance has allowed progressive subversion ranging from foreign bank charters, foreign fractioning of U.S. economic policy leading to civil war, elimination of federal accountability to state assemblies by the 17th amendment, direct taxation of personal property and income, establishment of the Federal Reserve private banking cabal, FedRes manipulation of U.S. economy causing stock market crash culminating in great depression, FDR’s government expansion, President Johnson’s disastrous misapplication of the 14th amendment to foreigners beyond U.S. jurisdiction with the 1965 Immigration Act along with creating welfare dependency instead of workfare independence, President Clinton sending classified technology China and U.S. jobs out of the U.S. with NAFTA, President Bush’s unpatriotic Patriot Act, Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency by not being a “natural born citizen” in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution thus permitting his subsequent subversive economic sabotage by bailouts, insurmountable debt, nationalization of entire industries such as health care, encouraging illegal immigration and vote fraud, gun grabbing, and God help us, now claiming the right to murder U.S. citizens he deems dissidents – in total disregard to the rule of law and due process as demanded by the Constitution.

Wake up America!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wolf
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:31am
  “…the U.S. government is authorized to order the killing of any American citizen who is believed to be a “senior operational” leader of al Qaeda or “an associated force,” regardless of whether that person poses an immediate national security threat…”
  
  Clinton deemed members of the press and others were ‘legal targets’ during the Bosnian conflict, thereby creating a new ROE for an enemy. Now Obamao has deemed that haphazardly killing American citizens is ‘legal’, thereby changing the ROE again, ‘regardless that person poses an immediate threat’.
  
  Clinton’s ROE declared members of the press as legal targets… now Obamao has declared members of government as legal targets.
  
  These people had better be careful what they wish for- they may just get it.
  
  Report this comment
Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:38am
Citizenship is irrelevant. Killing anybody without due process is unconstitutional. The word citizen doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights because our rights come from our maker, not from the government, and citizens and noncitizens are all children of the same God. If there is an exception to the right of due process for people who are living in other countries and waging war on us, that exception would apply equally to citizens of this country or of any other country.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
denkat56
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 10:55pm
Only if the boy king Obama says that is. Free reign to kill at his discretion. How long before people wake up and see the facts.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DefyTYRANNY
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 10:54pm
No, murdering Americans without due process is not Constitutional.

But here’s how they will justify it:

“When the Constitution was written by those ignorant racist terrorists, their small minds couldn’t comprehend that we would have apple products and missile firing drones, therefore it does not apply. The Constitution is stupid anyway.”

The motivations of people are the same as they ever were. The methods and details do not matter, whether now or in the 1700′s or 1800′s. Or before that for that matter.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 10:19pm
Pray tell, explain to us how one American individual can be an immediate threat the security of the United States? Are they building WMDs?

Did they buy 200 F-16s, and 200 tanks, or you are trying to tell us, we could not protect 4 Americans in the US embassy, so basically, if you are over seas and have a pistol, or we think you have a pistol, you might be an immediate danger to someone, that we can send a $200 missile at with no accountability to either the justice system or the tax payers, and ooops, if we make a mistake, you will never know because it will be classified, which is a win win for us, because that just makes us look smarter, and people will really fear us?

That’s the future of America you want?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DefyTYRANNY
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 10:50pm
  I think we pay more than $200 for those.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.