In response to:

The Drone Debate: A Matter of Trust

Robert437 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:05 AM
-STATUTE- Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Texas Chris Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 9:53 AM
I agree with this. But it requires a trial. A judge, a jury, a defense, and a guilty verdict to carry out the sentence.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 9:52 AM


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.

Paulus Textor Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:26 AM
Assuming you have quoted this statute accurately (it mimics, to some degree, the language of the Constitution), the question arises: who gets to define what constitutes an "enemy" of the United States?

Traditionally, naming "enemies" was done via a formal declaration of war. But in our mealy-mouthed, have-it-all-ways age, we don't get declarations of war, naming specific enemies. We get "authorizations to use force" against anyone who, at the president's sole discretion, is a "terrorist."

Tyrants, of both Republican and Democrat persuasions, LOVE such handy flexibility.

Shame on Congress--and shame on US--for giving tyrants such power, with barely a whisper of protest.
Corbett_ Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 9:53 AM

And who is to determine who is guilty of treason? The CONSTITUTION says it must be a jury.
Phuket Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:07 AM
Well, there goes half of the Democrats in Congress.

In conversations with those opposed to the notion of drone attacks against U.S. citizens, on or away from American soil, I ask a question as a consistency test:

Is your opposition based on a blanket principle that no President should have such power, or is it a spurred by a mistrust of the current administration?

In many cases I get the first answer, so I know I am engaged with a libertarian mindset, which I always respect and often share. We should always take great pause before empowering government to take bold action unilaterally that could result in loss of life...