Back in Our Face: What Does Due Process Mean for Americans

U. S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator "Drone" In Flight

Update (February 13, 2014): Historical and legal foundation for "assassination" by the United States with these key reminders:

1.  President Bush issued an Executive Order to advance and institutionalize the reforms enacted into law by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and to provide a durable framework for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence activities.  The Executive Order – which updates Executive Order 12333 originally issued by President Reagan in 1981 – responds to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). 

This Executive Order also retains the existing ban on assassination and the limitations on human experimentation.  Intelligence officials will continue to be obligated to report possible violations of federal law to the Attorney General, as well as to the DNI and the President's Intelligence Oversight Board.

2.  Background leading up to that Bush EO:

Part 2.11 of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. It reads:  "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." 

Previously, in EO 11905 (President Ford) had banned political assassinations and in EO 12036 (President Carter) had further banned indirect U.S. involvement in assassinations. 

As early as 1998, this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism.

Here we are today:

The Associated Press reported (see below) that the White House is considering using a drone strike to assassinate an American citizen accused of ties to Al-Qaeda.

If the administration ends up approving the strike, the target would become the fifth American citizen killed by the government’s so-called “remote assassination program.”

News that the White House is considering killing yet another American comes less than a year after the President announced reforms to the drone program during a speech at the National Defense University.

As early as 1998, this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism.

Here we are today (this story), in part:

The Associated Press reported (see below) that the White House is considering using a drone strike to assassinate an American citizen accused of ties to Al-Qaeda.

If the administration ends up approving the strike, the target would become the fifth American citizen killed by the government’s so-called “remote assassination program.”

News that the White House is considering killing yet another American comes less than a year after the President announced reforms to the drone program during a speech at the National Defense University.

As I said, here we are again: We are about to witness the turmoil and mechanics that go into a presidential decision about whether or not to employ one of our drones to “take out an American” that supposedly has been identified as an al-Qaeda operative in an unidentified country that does not allow our drones in their airspace. Precise details are of course, lacking, but the essence of the story follows: 

WASHINGTON (AP) — An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaeda facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

My notes: 

1.  I can just hear the GOP hawks claiming over the next few days: “See, we told you so. Obama is weak on fighting terrorism. He cannot be trusted. If we were to ask Monica Lewinsky, she would tell us not to trust him just like she ended up not trusting Bill Clinton.”

2.  GOP campaign posters, TV ads, and Talking Points for appearance on Fox are being developed as I type this post and will go into full swing once Roger Ailes and Karl Rove approve them.

And, other nonsense things like that. Am I cynical, apathetic, or what? Nope not in the least bit. I believe I am being very realistic and this is based on current events and GOP reaction to everything around them as they search for an issue that will stick for 2014 and beyond.

Thus far, they not having much luck on getting much traction on things like: “Obama's birth place; his “real” religion; where he keeps his copy of Qu'ran; how much more will he bow to Muslims; does h actually pray towards Mecca (I just added that one); what are his real ties to Rev. Wright; and more recently, little evidence that shows that the IRS right wing scandal, Benghazi attack, and seizure of AP records have done any lasting damage to Obama. But, hey, that still doesn't keep them from digging and slinging more. They do have Witch Hunter-in-Chief Darrel Issa still on the job.

A lot of tongue in cheek here today, but the issue remains: Use of drones to track down and kill Americans under any and all circumstances is the great challenge of the day - it may decide our national future.

Stay tuned, and thanks for stopping by.