Where are all the protests? Oh yeah, this is an Obama World where the current administration is not bothered by the media or liberal protest outfits as they continue or greatly expand policies of past administrations that were highly ridiculed at the time.
To clarify, there are protests, just none here in the United States. Personally, I have no problem with drones killing terrorists, but when the administration elects to target US citizens outside the country when they prove to to be an “imminent” threat that does not fit the standard definition of imminent?
The 16-page memo leaked the other day includes the phrase “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” – or a paraphrase of the same – multiple times. In part, it reads…
Certain aspects of this legal framework requires additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack agains the Unites States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.
The issue of drone strikes on Americans abroad is one that we’ll all have to think long and hard about. If someone presents a clear and present danger – for an example bringing a few RPGs to a battle during an embassy attack – I would not expect anyone to be checking passports. But if an American is driving from one city to another for a meeting?
The big problem I have here is the obvious hypocrisy of the left and the media. The Obama administration freaks out at the thought of using enhanced interrogation techniques on foreign jihadists, but has no problem using drones to take out Americans if they fit their own definition of an imminent threat. One Slate article I read this morning ended with the following paragraph.
Obama and Bush administration lawyers have stretched the Constitution and traditional rules of international law to accommodate the threat posed by terrorism. Some people will say they violated the law. But given the political consensus supporting these moves within the U.S., it is more accurate to say that the law has evolved. It gives the president the discretion he needs, or at least wants, to address an amorphous threat. Let’s hope he uses that discretion wisely.
I had to laugh. When the Bush administration was fighting the war on terrorism, the media left was practically calling for Bush and Cheney to be brought up on war crimes at the International Criminal Court. But now Obama gets a pass? Instead of the law evolving, I’d suggest the media evolved.
I also have to wonder why the Obama administration thinks it’s OK to use military drones with rockets to preemptively stop a threat that – in my opinion – does not meet the definition of imminent, while demanding I can not use a semi-automatic rifle to stop a threat who might be breaking into my home. Why can’t they just shoot them in the leg or something?