Meaning is it legal or not, and so on.
Edited to add: I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just asking the questions here. But that's because I'm really confused and I don't know if I'm missing something or misinterpreting something. Thanks in advance guys.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I need some clarity and I'm not running on anything here. I've made comments but overall I'm ambivalent about how I feel about this because we don't have that much information on this topic.
I will not address the drone attacks considering I remember Turley was saying that it's iffy overall to determine whether this is unconstitutional since international law doesn't really address drone attacks so it's iffy but by his estimation at least unethical if not illegal. However, there is no denying he's against the drone strikes.
The article from NYT says drone attacks are legal:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/drone-strikes-are-legal-u-s-official-says/ But some people don't agree with NYT articles, so that's up in the air.
Turley comment...however I was commenting on Turley's comments on this on KO's show, but this is similar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMWtvAp2-aMBut again this is not the bulk of my problem, actually not a problem at all, just something I decided to address since it's been clumped in with this issue in a few posts.
---------------------------------------------------
Anyway, my main concern is this American citizen thing. I'm going by the talk of his actions being treasonous. Let's say his actions were determined to be treasonous, wouldn't that make this constitutional. A lot of people have said this is not constitutional and you may be right. However I looked up this part of the Constitution on treason (Article 3, Section 3), and I'm no Constitutional lawyer so I'm going by interpretations, but if this thing falls into treasonous, from what I read it's not unconstitutional as so many has claimed. But please, please correct me if I'm wrong.
To digress a bit from the article, Jack Rice was on KO's show last night and he said he didn't agree with this unless there was enough evidence to justify the actions and if there was is, then Obama's actions (if this is confirmed) are in the right. Now a few people on there said otherwise...but I will put up the quote by KO and the ex-CIA guy Jack Rice:
KO: And there's the Devil's Advocate question, assuming Awalaki is guilty and is actively trying to kill Americans not just advocating that, not just advocating that which is what he started at, but actually involved is this not exactly what the Obama administration should be doing?
ex-CIA JR: Absolutely. Again, assume is really the effective word here. We have to be able to make that call. We're not talking about wrapping him in a warm blanket and rocking him like a young child. We're talking about knowing what we're doing and ensuring that when we make a decision it's the right one. And that's what you and I are discussing right now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x452857Let me be clear,
JR is by and large against this action. However, he did make his final statement to elude that if there is enough evidence then it's justified. Here in lies one of my problems. Why was it unconstitutional before hand, and until apparently we're running on the gambit Obama doesn't have enough evidence. But it completely changes if he does have enough supporting evidence...wouldn't it remain unconstitutional because the guy is a US citizen?
This leads me to the whole treason thing again. Please keep in mind I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I can be wrong on this and I'm using wiki if that tells you where I am on this. I found this on treason:
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason <---Scroll down to the US section.
Again I'm not trying to make any claims here or justifying any actions. Unlike what some people would like to believe. However, I will say that this gives me the impression that Congress can give permission to take someone out without a court trial as long as they have two witnesses who can give Testimony (assuming to Congress) to the same overt Act. On KO they make mention that this kid---that plane bomber was probably taking his orders from this guy. And I'm not sure if the US has anyone else in custody. But from what I see, if they have two people who can say without a shadow of a doubt this guy was planning on killing Americans and they have other evidence, a court case (as we normally see them) is not necessary. Again, I'm not justifying anything since I support criminal cases brought to these people in the US. However, I just want some clarity on this. Am I interpreting this wrong, is this unconstitutional or constitutional if this guy is considered treasonous----is his actions treasonous?
Let me know...because as I said...overall I'm just confused on all this. I know there are many here who just think this is unjustifiable. But I'm saying, what if there is enough information, or let's say this guy falls in line with acts of treason (again because I've seen that thrown out there on this board).