Loading

Banter Voices

Whatever Happened to Due Process?

By · February 05,2013
Print Friendly
| 155 Views | Foreign Policy Politics

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

droneI support most of President Barack Obama’s actions and policies.  That does not mean when they violate the fundamental ideas that make me believe in our republic I will blindly follow him.  The recent reports about his use of drones to target Americans trouble me.  If these same policies were announced under George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House I would be furious.  Case in point:  I opposed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  This expands law enforcement’s abilities to spy on its own citizens.  The proudest moment of my career was when I texted my then boss to repeat the above quote on the floor of the House of Representatives before he voted no to its reauthorization and he did.  I was even more appalled when a Bush spokesperson explained away the deaths of some Americans overseas — they were on a bus that had been targeted because there was a terror suspect on board — by saying that; their proximity to the terrorist meant they were equally as guilty, as if they had any idea.

So the revelation that we are using drones, and my feelings on their use in general ranges from just bad policy to being downright evil, disturbs me greatly.

Every US passport reads, “The Secretary of State of the United States of America herby requests all whom it may concern to permit this citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.”  So, even when outside of the country, the rights bestowed on Americans while inside the US, extend to us when we are outside of it.  It’s why embassies are considered to be part of the country they represent. (If you are wondering how I feel about the policy to hold US citizens indefinitely when suspected of being traitors, I feel exactly the same way).

Our Constitution, the guiding document of our government provides us with certain protections against being signaled out for prosecution and certainly death at the hands of our government.  I am willing to give up some conveniences to be safer.  I take my shoes off and walk through often confusing and less than coordinated policies the TSA has set up when I fly. I accept that on any given day, I am photographed or videotaped countless times as I go about my day to day life.  I am not willing to give up those protections, however and believe both the provisions that allow our federal government to detain or kill anyone because it thinks it has “intelligence” that proves they are terrorists.  Our “intelligence” told us Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.  It has also more recently lead to us using our drones against such dangerous threats as weddings.

Specifically, these provisions violates:

The Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Sixth Amendment:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The gist of how this policy works is a senior US government official — apparently the president himself, reviews intelligence and decides who lives and who dies.  Notwithstanding the inherent flaws in any intelligence of this sort — even when followed to the letter, our criminal justice system has deep flaws (Look at the number of people removed from death row or the states that have imposed moratoriums on it due to DNA evidence) — we elected a president, not a god or king.

Yes, al Qaeda wants to attack us and yes, the definition of war has changed dramatically how we fight non-nation states.  In the post “24″ and “Zero Dark Thirty” world, maybe we think we need to resort to extreme tactics to keep our citizenry safe.   I do not subscribe to the view that torture produces good intelligence (to quote ‘Reservoir Dogs” – “If you torture someone long enough they will admit to setting the Chicago Fire but that don’t make it so.”) but that’s a point for another day.

I still don’t think tossing due process under the bus is ever a good idea.  I mean, if we destroy the very things that make our nation so special, I guess the terrorists can all go to Disney World because they clearly have won.

Here is that memo as obtained by NBC News.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    What about the non-US citizens killed by drones, especially those who are not part of the conflict? Aren’t you troubled by that?

    • dbtheonly

      Q,

      Nice monicker. One of my favorite Romans.

      Every thinking person is concerned and troubled by the loss of life American or otherwise.

      “war is hell”

      The terrorists are plotting the deaths of Americans. How do you keep America safe? What better alternative do you offer?

      And if you don’t mind responding to your post over at Mr. P’s, we are hearing about it now as the RWMOs have decided that this is an easy subject to hammer President Obama &/or make the “liberals” look “soft on terrorism” &/or split the Democratic Party to it’s electoral disadvantage.

      • Fabius_Maximus

        I don’t have a solution. But the hypocrisy is funny.

        • dbtheonly

          It’s hypocrisy to try to try to keep Americans safe?
          it’s hypocrisy to be forced to kill to protect the lives of others?
          Not just American Service Members, who have signed on for the risk, but you, me, Ms. Chadwick, her kids, & every other American wherever we travel; we are all at risk. There are people out there plotting your death at this very moment.

          President Obama is willing to kill them before they kill you.

          You think that a bad idea?

          • Fabius_Maximus

            It’s hypocrisy to gripe only about the lack of due process for US citizens who are targeted by drones.

            I am enough of a realist to know that this isn’t possible for all of them to be treated as the criminals they are. I think, however, that assassination is the easy way out. I also think that due process should at least apply to all people interred in Guantanamo, or everyone being captured.

            But please, stop singling out US citizens. They are not better by default, and it makes everyone who does it look stupid.

          • dbtheonly

            Q,

            You’re right, the nationality of the victim is of no relevance to the regret we feel at the need to stop them attacking the US. If a better answer than assassination existed; we’d jump at it. To my mind the only worse choice would be doing nothing to stop the terrorists.

            Due Process has never applied to Prisoners of War. On the other hand we generally don’t try POWs in Criminal Court. The “War on Terror” certainly leads to anomalous results.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Except these are not regular POWs. They do not belong to a country’s army; they essentially are armed civilians. Which makes them criminals.

          • dbtheonly

            Right on all counts. So we’re left with the question of what we do with murderous criminals that are beyond the reach of traditional Law Enforcement..

    • http://www.facebook.com/Alyson.Chadwick Alyson Chadwick

      Yes. I am. We may be saving American troops in the short term (the rationale), we are creating more enemies of the US (policy problem). On a human rights level, killing innocents is never a good thing. It is a horrible thing.

  • Christopher Foxx

    The recent reports about his use of drones to target Americans trouble me. If these same policies were announced under George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House I would be furious.

    Ah, so drones by a Republican President: cause for fury. Drones by a Democratic President: merely troubling.

    Good to see your moral indignation isn’t biased.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Alyson.Chadwick Alyson Chadwick

      My entire point is how upset I am about this policy. I am pretty furious about this. I expected better from Obama. But you can think what you like. My entire post was how unconstitutional his actions are. PS. Did you read the last paragraph? Your objection is that you think I am less mad at Obama? I am not.

    • dbtheonly

      Christopher, Ms. Chadwick,

      Buzz & I went over the very subject a week or so ago. But:

      1. Bad Guys are out there.

      2. Bad Guys are actively plotting attacks against the United States.

      3. Bad Guys are not often within the range of any reasonable judicial system.

      4. President Obama swore to defend the United States.

      So you both don’t like the drone attacks. Got it. But what do you suggest instead? I’ll contend that doing nothing both violates President Obama’s oath of office and is politically suicidal.

      Ms. Chadwick, you really do dance around that question. Come up with a better idea. Due Process is awesome, but these Bad Guys have put themselves beyond the reach of the US Judicial system.

      And yes, I trust President Obama to exhaust every other possibility before ordering the death of anyone. Did I feel the same with President Bush? No.

      I am generally not in favor of an armed populace. I am not
      at all worried about the local police carrying weapons, concealed or
      otherwise. Is my “moral indignation biased”? No, somethings are
      dangerous and I trust those items only to very few. The guys who took
      out what’sisname in Alabama, yes. George Zimmerman, no.

      So, Ms. Chadwick, “maybe we think we need to resort to extreme tactics to keep our citizenry safe.”. I’m with you. But before condemning President Obama’s actions, come up with a practical alternative. I don’t have one.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Alyson.Chadwick Alyson Chadwick

        “Ms. Chadwick, you really do dance around that question. Come up with a better idea. Due Process is awesome, but these Bad Guys have put themselves beyond the reach of the US Judicial system.

        And yes, I trust President Obama to exhaust every other possibility before ordering the death of anyone. Did I feel the same with President Bush? No.”

        You make my point, in a way. While I personally trust Obama more than I would a Bush, the precedent he sets by doing this will last longer than his time in office and I am not sure — as much as I trust him — to make these decisions. I don’t think our intelligence is at a point of infallibility to be there. And I worry both about that and about how presidents (him and others) will use this new power. Again, we did not elect a king, we elected a president and they should not have the power to kill any American citizen then want to. And can we trust they will abide by the standards we set? Will citizens they don’t like be targeted? Can you say they won’t be?

        Do I have an answer that will keep us safe from all attacks? No. And anyone who tells you they do is lying. I am not dancing around anything. But I will tell you we cannot champion the rule of law of home and bash it abroad. And while I am championing platitudes, I would rather die in an open society than live in a closed one.

        Letting one person look at a list of American citizens overseas and get to decide who they kill and don’t, that seems wrong to me. Moreover our use of drones is causing more enemies of the US than reducing them. I am no pacifist but this is not the way to do it. I will never claim to have all the answers but this isn’t one of them.

        • dbtheonly

          Ms. Chadwick,

          yes, you get to where Buzz & I were about a week ago. Drones aren’t a good answer, they are merely the best answer I know of. It’s the other half of the gun control argument. If it prevents only one mass killing of Americans; how far do we go?
          .
          I am confident that President Obama knows he will answer for each drone strike (whether Americans or not) at the Judgment Throne. I am confident that he does not act except upon the most clear & convincing evidence. Can evidence be wrong? Can people make mistakes? No argument.

          But please remember the attempted “scandal du jour” Fox “News” tried to make out of President Obama waiting 6 hours to launch the attack that took out Osama. Think of what’s being prevented. Think of the result if another “9/11″ happens on president Obama’s watch.

          Do you really feel that doing nothing is preferable?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Alyson.Chadwick Alyson Chadwick

            No but it is not unreasonable to have a discussion about we are doing here. I don’t think this is a “scandal du jour” I think it is a serious compromise of our ideals. And what happens at your “judgement throne” means zero to me.

          • dbtheonly

            Ms. Chadwick:

            ” And what happens at your “judgement throne” means zero to me.” Well yes, but this is hardly about you is it? President Obama is the one making the call & the fact that, as a devoted Christian, he recognizes the awesome responsibilities of his actions; gives me comfort that he will not use his power rashly. Oliver Willis would recognize the quote, “with great power comes great responsibility” Or as Harry Truman had it, “the buck stops here”.

            But in a way this is about you, the two daughters (?) you picture in your (whatever it is). It’s about their safety & the safety of the 300 million plus other Americans. I do not ask that you have a perfect solution. I ask that you have a better solution. You complain but you offer no alternatives. You wish to debate policy, but you offer nothing. It hardly lunacy to ask you what you want to do. The safety of Americans is at stake.

            In the past I would have dismissed you as a whiny Liberal with wonderful ideas & absolutely no idea of how to get there from here.

            That luxury is no longer affordable. Fox “News” and the other RWMO actively are tearing at President Obama. They are trying to find or create “scandals” with which to destroy him, his policies, and/or his legacy. We have endured two years of mindless opposition from Republicans. They have come close, on several occasions, to wrecking the economy and imperiling the health, safety, and lives of Americans. The policies advocated by the Republicans are extreme but seem plausible given the strength of the RWMO. Your criticism of President Obama, while offering no alternative, plays right into their hands.

            You are unwilling to lead & offer alternatives.
            You are unwilling to follow.
            You know the rest of the quote.

Most Read Articles Today:

Copyright © 2013 BanterMediaGroup, L.L.C. All rights reserved.