Drone Strikes at Home?

The main controversy over the current administration’s drone strikes program has not been about committing acts of war without a declaration of war.

It has not been about committing acts of war within the boundaries of allied countries.

It has not been about killing innocents.

And it has certainly not been about the reliability of information that gets to the president’s desk that might cause him to order a drone strike.

No, the controversy has centered on the killing American citizens abroad with drone strikes. Some people favor it, since the main American targets are “traitors” and “terrorists.” But many others balk: Without a trial, how do we determine their guilt?

The usual response to that? “This is war!”

But no war has been declared. And, ahem, our side often blows up people far away from any battlefield and in allied territory . . . including a 16-year old American citizen killed in Yemen for being related to his father, Anwar al-Awlaki.

This, however, is just the tip of the enormity. The language from the folks in the administration suggests that borderlines mean nothing to them. Which raises a big question: “What about within our borders?”

The administration has been evasive.

This disturbs Sen. Rand Paul. “What I’m asking is about drone strikes on Americans, on American soil. The president will not answer that he cannot do this. In fact, he seems to be asserting that he can do this; all he’ll say is he doesn’t intend to do this.”

Sending drones to kill foreigners, innocents as well as enemies, on allied soil, in secret, without any method of accountability, is the behavior of a rogue nation. To claim the same power  on our own soil? That’s tyrannical.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

6 Comments so far ↓

  1. Feb
    19
    10:19
    AM
    drrik

    176 dead children in the drone strikes ordered by the president. Two of them American children but what difference does it make?

    No issue with borders to a president who does not recognize or defend ours. Everyone under the bus.

  2. Feb
    19
    10:43
    AM
    Homer

    VIVA LA PATRIOT ACT!!

    Caveat Emptor!

    Of course trying to tell people that back in the day, well, we “were either with [the creators of the Patriot Act] or with the terrorists.”

    The joke’s on us. Sadly, far too many still can’t see the dark “punch line.”

  3. Feb
    19
    12:51
    PM
    Brian Richard Allen

    …. no war has been declared ….

    Beg to differ, Mr Jacob.

    Within three days of September 11 2001′s atrocities forever cementing into History the Cli’ton “administration’s” only lasting legacy, Congress had authorized the President of the United States to fight any nations, organizations, or persons that he determined had aided the September 11 terrorists or that harbored anyone who had.

    The war most certainly was thus authorized and declared and also within days it was made clear it might not be concluded in any of our life times!

    Brian Richard Allen:.
    Lost Angels – Califobamacated 90028
    And The Very Far Away!

  4. Feb
    19
    4:03
    PM
    Rollin L

    While I don’t want to make light of the concerns raised here, about the use of drone strikes on American citizens or other actions which may violate the U.S. Constitution, the sad thing about this argument as it is always made is the use of Anwar al-Awlaki as the poster child. To put al-Awlaki in the category of a normal, U.S. citizen with full Constitutional protections is to be at direct odds with the historical and correct meaning of who is a citizen. The late al-Awlaki was no more a U.S. citizen than a modern “anchor baby” whose parents came here merely to get that foot in the door. No one with any intellectual honesty can claim that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is the sole basis of the argument in favor, has any factual reality when the intent and true historical context of the Amendment is considered. I know, it is routinely accepted in this day, but it is as wrong headed and dangerous as claiming that the preamble of the 2nd Amendment means that the whole of the text refers to a collective, rather than individual right.

    Like many illegal aliens, al-Awlaki committed document fraud and “gamed” the system in whichever fashion worked to his advantage at a given time, including lying about his birthplace in order to get scholarship money as a foreign student. That is something many suspect President Obama may have done, but with al-Awlaki the paper trail is documented. Just because he was born here- only because his foreign parents were here temporarily for schooling- and that he returned here for higher education after spending most of his youth in his parents’ native Yemen, does not mean that he ever had any allegiance to America or considered himself American in any way save in a quasi-legal sense. The man’s track record is as ruthless as any islamic terrorist born in Yemen, Saudi Arabia or wherever you pick. He is a truly poor example in the illustration being made here. If we are to effectively make the argument about the dangers of assassination of American citizens either here or in foreign lands, it would be wise to find a better way.

  5. Feb
    19
    5:31
    PM
    Rick_in_VA

    There is a reason, actually there are many reasons, why some refer to Obama as the “Tyrant-in-Chief”.

  6. Feb
    19
    7:36
    PM
    Kenneth H. Fleischer

    “That’s tyrranical,” yes, and another word also applies: It’s criminal. The crime is premeditated murder.

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field Be sure to answer the simple math problem below to help demonstrate that you are a human rather than a spambot.

Leave a Comment






+ 9 = fourteen

1 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Common Sense with Paul Jacob » Archive » Droning On?