Hi guys! I haven’t posted in a while, but I’m back and plan on posting the next couple of days.
Recently, in a a Justice Department memo obtained by a NBC News, the legal justification for the killing of American citizens connected to al-Qaida was explained. Such citizens must meet three criteria: The citizen must pose “an imminent threat of violent attack” against the US, capturing the citizen must not be feasible, and it all has to be done within “law of war principles.”
I find this issue to be very troubling. I personally think that what The Obama administration has done with drones is disgusting. We have dropped countless drones in countless places, killing a countless number of people, including innocent women and children. Unlike typical warfare, the use of drones is very disconnected. You don’t actually have to see the people you are killing.
I think the killing of US citizens without due process is straight out unconstitutional, but even if the killing of American citizens by the government could be constitutional, the memo is exceedingly vague. What defines an imminent threat? What is and isn’t feasible? Is infeasible completely impossible or just improbable?
Despite my comments, I think that this issue is an extremely difficult one for the President to deal with. He has to make a tough decision between risking the death of American soldiers for the sake of due process or bypassing due process and killing an evil individual with the murder of civilians on his mind. In this case I think the President is taking the easy way out instead of taking the moral high ground, and I think that is despicable.
I’m going to end this post by asking a question. If the government can legally justify killing citizens overseas, what stops them from killing citizens here in the United States?