Obama Expands Drone Strikes To American Soil
March 6, 2013 8 Comments
Back when Bush 43 was President the anti-war left, Obama included, pitched a hissy fit over drone strikes on terrorists. In fact they pitched a fit over both wars and the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Since Obama became President the anti-war left suddenly fell silent on all of these issues. Thus proving that they really weren’t against the war, they were just against Bush. Obama didn’t stop the wars immediately, in fact got involved in a third war in Libya. Guantanamo is still open. No one seems to talk about that anymore, the press suddenly doesn’t care how the prisoners there are being treated.
The bigger issue today is that the left is silent on drone strikes. They were outraged over drone strikes on terrorists, accusing Bush of killing children and other innocent people. Obama hasn’t just adopted Bush’s drone strike policy, he’s expanded it. From all accounts Obama goes through terrorist files and picks and chooses which ones to attack. Bush limited attacks to foreign terrorists, Obama with Eric Holder’s help has expanded the attacks to include Americans who may be working with our terrorist enemies. Thus these American citizens, evil though they may be, are denied their Constitutional rights. Obama is their judge, jury and executioner.
All of the drone strikes in question have taken place on foreign soil. It would be one thing if during the course of war the American military killed Americans who are wearing the combat uniform of a foreign power. But these drone strikes involve people who pose no direct threat like, for example, someone who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. These are people who may be hatching evil plots but at the time of their execution via drone strike they don’t pose an immediate threat. If Holder believes killing these Americans is Constitutional what is to stop drone strikes on American soil?
Nothing according to Eric Holder. Holder in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul says that while conditions for an American soil drone strike may be rare and unlikely, it would be constitutional. Holder already set the precedent for killing Americans via drone strike abroad. He’s using that precedent to expand it to include American soil. All it takes is an American ”terrorist” and a President willing to push the button. All in the name of public safety of course. Any lunatic dreaming big evil dreams involving death and destruction in his parents basement are potential targets of Holder’s policy. All in the name of public safety.
It’s potentially worse than that. Political opponents can be branded as terrorists and taken out via predator drone. More than a few Democrats called the NRA domestic terrorists after the Newtown shooting. Under Holder’s precedent the President could decide to take out the NRA headquarters in Virginia. All in the name of public safety of course. If we elect ourselves a particularly evil President, it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that this precedent could be used to take out members of other political parties. If the Supreme Court doesn’t like it, he’ll drone attack them too.
Obama is unlikely to attack political opponents in this manner. But that’s not the point. The point here is that we’ve seen this administration expand the use of drone attacks to first include American citizens and now to use drone attacks on American soil. There are no limits on these drone attacks other than the limits the administration has created for itself. We’ve seen these limits erode over just the last four years. Congress needs to limit the power of the President to use drones on American citizens. In fact, Congress would be wise to eliminate the Holder precedent by banning drone strikes on Americans altogether. The government should not be entrusted with the power to declare Americans terrorists without a trial. The potential for corruption is far too great.
About Steven
Good post. I agree almost completely.
For what it’s worth, Obama has already publicly stated multiple times that Congress needs to “put a legal architecture in place” in regards to the administration’s use of drones.
I’m shocked, we actually have agreement.
It’s not worth much that Obama is shifting drone “legal architecture” to Congress while his administration is, behind the scenes, creating “legal architecture” allowing the government to attack US citizens on American soil. The Senate needed to take this up when it was limited to foreign nationals. At this point, with the administration believing it can assasinate Americans in the US, if the Senate won’t take the issue then the House needs to.
The forecast in hell must be calling for snow.
I have to say that I am not that surprised that America (one of the only developed countries in the world which still allows the state sponsored murder of its own citizens) is going a step further and potentially denying due process before killing some more humans. Such bending of the rules will be necessary though to catch China and Iran who killed 1000+ and 276 respectively in 2011. With 43 executions that year, the US did at least beat out rivals North Korea (30) and Yemen (29).
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
I don’t consider the death penalty “state sponsored murder.” Having said that, those on death row have had their day in court. They’ve been afforded due process, probably more than they deserve considering all of the appeals that are allowed. What the Obama administration is throwing its weight behind is a denial of due process via the assasination of Americans all under the guise of fighting terrorism. I would rather risk more terrorist attacks than give Obama or any President the authority to assasinate whomever he pleases in the name of fighting terrorism via drone attack.
I am also anti-drone. Mainly because I believe it creates more future terrorists when used in the Middle East.
Domestically, I oppose any state sponsored killing (drone attack assassination, death penalty executions, or otherwise) because our governments (states and federal) and criminal justice systems are far too flawed to be entrusted with making decisions that cannot be reversed.
Case in point: 303 CONVICTED inmates have been exonerated in the US based on DNA evidence; 18 of those were death row inmates. The number of death row inmates wrongly killed is unknown.
I wouldn’t have a problem with drone strikes if they were limited to international terrorists. There are other factors to consider of course, including that which you mention. (the sovereignty of foreign nations is another) If Pakistan allowed the US to enter their airspace to attack bin Laden with a drone I don’t oppose that. That’s a very limited use of drones though. If, for example, bin Laden was an American then as far as I’m concerned he’s entitled to protections under the Constitution and thus attacking him with a drone would be unconstitutional.
Your last sentence sums it all up. The potential for corruption is far too great to allow our government to use drones on American soil. Even if that were not the case, it has been illegal since 1878, when Posse Comitatis was enacted.
Posse Comitatis wouldn’t apply unless the military controlled the drones. The Feds could have the FBI, Homeland Security or ATF control the drones and then it would bypass that law. If I’m a suspected terrorist on US soil, it seems to me that would fall under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security or the FBI. If I’m a political difficulty, then almost surely the military wouldn’t have to be involved.
I understand that as it stands now drones are being used by the military on foreign soil. Even if Holder has suggested the military could use them here, he could easily get around posse comitatis.