Graham: Protect President Obama from "Libertarians and the Left"

[KC]

Wow. What a blatant defense of unconstitutional policies. Looks like this may be an issue where libertarians and the non Democrat left may have some common ground. Methinks there's some potential there.



“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.
“I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.
“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.”
“If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists."




http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/06/lindsey-graham-urges-colleagues-to-suppo

[Cigar]

The issue have little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Presidency.

No politician wants on record, and part of their legacy, that when terrorist was in the cross-hairs, The President of The United States was forced to get a second opinion from a Lawyer.

I'm perfectly fine with any American who is known to be plotting to kill Americans ... to get blown away before he/her is successful.

[Agravan]

The issue have little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Presidency.

No politician wants on record, and part of their legacy, that when terrorist was in the cross-hairs, The President of The United States was forced to get a second opinion from a Lawyer.

I'm perfectly fine with any American who is known to be plotting to kill Americans ... to get blown away before he/her is successful.
But the key word is "suspected", not "known". Are you still ok with that? Who defines "terrorist" for the government?
Right now, it's you people. What happens when the other side gets to define it? Will you be as ok with it then?

[Adelaide]

The issue have little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Presidency.

No politician wants on record, and part of their legacy, that when terrorist was in the cross-hairs, The President of The United States was forced to get a second opinion from a Lawyer.

I'm perfectly fine with any American who is known to be plotting to kill Americans ... to get blown away before he/her is successful.

Americans are entitled to their constitutional right of trial and jury... I thought?

[Peter1469]

Americans are entitled to their constitutional right of trial and jury... I thought?

Yes. Due process. The executive branch does not have the right to unilaterally determine that an American should be killed (with exceptions of course, like active combat). I certainly hold that position with Americans in America. I am still thinking about Americans overseas actively in the fight.

[Adelaide]

Yes. Due process. The executive branch does not have the right to unilaterally determine that an American should be killed (with exceptions of course, like active combat). I certainly hold that position with Americans in America. I am still thinking about Americans overseas actively in the fight.

It might be cost effective to take criminal Americans overseas out via drone strikes, but it's not constitutional. Bringing them home and putting them on trial would be constitutional, right?

[Peter1469]

It might be cost effective to take criminal Americans overseas out via drone strikes, but it's not constitutional. Bringing them home and putting them on trial would be constitutional, right?

That is likely the prevailing view under Constitutional law. I could write a reasonable legal opinion that says an American, overseas, with little to no remaining ties to America, who is actively engaged in war against the US, can be legitimately targeted - but by the US military. The CIA is a civilian agency, and as such does not have combatant immunity to engage in military operations.

Another option for overseas Americans that cannot be brought before a US federal district court- an indictment and trial in absentia.

[Private Pickle]

The issue have little to do with Obama and everything to do with the Presidency.

No politician wants on record, and part of their legacy, that when terrorist was in the cross-hairs, The President of The United States was forced to get a second opinion from a Lawyer.

I'm perfectly fine with any American who is known to be plotting to kill Americans ... to get blown away before he/her is successful.

Just as long as it isn't an American defending himself with his gun... You're logic fails you yet again...

[Pete7469]

The left's outrage over drones is limited to their desire to see America weakened and our enemies free to carry out their agenda. They might feign concern for constitutional rights when it serves their purpose, but make no mistake about their true intentions. If they could get drone strikes on Rush Limbaugh in his Florida home they would have done it already.

Even Anwar Alaki should have been tried even in absentia. For that matter if OBL was unarmed as the story goes, he should be getting waterboarded in Gitmo as we speak. (or type).

[Jarlaxle]

It might be cost effective to take criminal Americans overseas out via drone strikes, but it's not constitutional. Bringing them home and putting them on trial would be constitutional, right?

Don't even have to do that: trying them in absentia would work!

[Pete7469]

Don't even have to do that: trying them in absentia would work!

And you can bet there'd be ACLU pinko trial lawyers lined up to defend them.

[Jarlaxle]

As there should be. The accused, regardless of what he is accused of, is entitled to competent defense council.

[Pete7469]

As there should be. The accused, regardless of what he is accused of, is entitled to competent defense council.

Agreed, I'm just pointing out the ACLU is selective of which civil liberties they defend.