- Posted February 5, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Is it Okay to Use Drones to Kill US Citizens Abroad?
When I first heard this, my initial thought was, what about these people’s due process. Have they been declared guilty and condemned to death without the opportunity to face their accuser?
This issue has re-emerged due to the disclosure of an unclassified Justice Department memo that laid out the legal framework for the U.S. Government’s ability to attack its own citizen. According to the article, the White House strongly defends the policy as legal and ethical.
Not too far in our recent past, we were all in a tizzy about making sure the terrorists in custody for the 9-11 attacks were given a fair trial. Now we are just attacking our own without the same concern?
The memo, first obtained by NBC News, argues that drone strikes are justified under American law if a targeted U.S. Citizen had “recently” been involved in “activities” posing threat and provided that there is no evidence suggesting the individual “renounced or abandoned” such activities.
This is where I jump off the right wing boat and begin swimming to the left…or at least before this that is where I thought the left stood on human rights. I just don’t think we can be targeting American’s for death without due process. In my opinion, it is not American.
Jay Carney is justifying the policy by saying that the drones are used to mitigate threats, stop plots, prevent future attacks and save American lives. He says: “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise”.
Aren’t these the same people screaming and yelling about water boarding…the interrogation technique that is thought by many to have been instrumental in catching the people responsible for 9-11? How can you take that stand and somehow believe it is ethical to target American’s suspected of terrorist activities? I know some will say that they have the intel to go on…we had intel about weapons of mass destruction that lead to the war in Iraq, so we know that sometimes intel can be wrong or at least mis-interpreted.
For once civil liberty groups are speaking out on something I think is important…instead of just beating up Christian traditions. They are questioning the policy because it allows the president to kill U.S. citizens abroad without a trial.
The 3 conditions under which the executive branch can order a drone strike are as follows:
A top US official must determine that the targeted person poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US, cannot be captured and that the strike would be conducted in a manner consistent with the application of war principles.
What do you think?
Will drone strikes against US citizens, suspected of terrorism abroad make us safer?
If this policy flies, will they justify drone strikes here in the US to head of domestic terrorist threats here? Will that somehow be ethical too?
Bush opened a scary can of worms with the patriot act and Obama in my opinion has extended the reach even farther. They first justified peering into our lives and now it is okay to kill us, all for the illusion of safety. It is just not worth it to me...