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?
Danny, the government does kill civilians here if they are a life threat to anyone, especially law enforcement. So I ask you, why can’t we do the same thing when an American soldiers life is threatened?
Uncle Jimmy, when I had to defend the administration’s position in class once, I compared it to a hostage taker in the U.S. If it means saving the hostage, law enforcement will gladly kill the hostage taker without giving him a fair trial. However, this case is different. The memo actually says that it “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Therefore, the U.S. just needs to suspect someone of maybe wanting to attack the U.S. and of having ties to terrorists to kill them. Also, prior to killing suspected terrorists with drones no chance to surrender is given.
Yeah, it’s a tough issue. I will usually side with the military on most decisions as their job is a matter of life and death and we shouldn’t judge them without walking in their shoes. But…… I sure hope they know what they are doing because I would hate to see any innocent people die.