Don, I am addressing the topic of the use of drones against Americans on American soil as this is the topic of the OP and thread.
I ask about the legality of Ruby Ridge and Waco as Americans were killed in both instances. I am not sure if due process was observed in either instance. My thinking is that if those two instances were legal then we are in a very gray area, IMHO, on the legality of the use of drones.
A hypothetical question. Would it have been legal to use drones against John Brown in Harpers Ferry in 1859 if they had such technology at that time?
We probably should stick with the issue of legality. If we enter a discussion on morality the thread will probably head off into numerous rabbit tracks not intended in the OP. That could be a good topic for another thread.
The legality or illegality, morality or immorality, of using drones, as they are being used in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places would be a good topic for another thread.
I hope this reply clarifies my reasons for my reply. That said, I repeat, I am very concerned about the use of drones or other deadly force against American citizens.
Technically, and I'm no lawyer by a long shot, it would have been legal in 1859, because the laws regarding "due process" weren't the same as they are now. The concepts were there; but there weren't the legal precedents we have now.
However, we actually CAN'T separate the concepts of legality and morality. As we're all aware, we have that problem now. Many, many things are legal; not all of them are moral. Alternatively, something may be morally correct; but it's not legal. For example, abortion protesters believe in the moral obligation to tell women that unborn babies are human lives; but laws have been enacted to restrict their ability to pass on that message. On the other side, many believe that abortion is immoral; but it's legal in most states.
A president may believe he/she has the moral obligation to use a drone to strike down someone they believe is a threat to the nation and its citizens; but our laws say that such individuals must be accused of such things, apprehended, and tried in a court of law by a judge and a jury of their peers.
What Holder suggested, and has now recanted, is that such laws could be violated if the morality of the situation appeared to give rise to necessity. Such power is exactly what the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent.
Not to mention that this administration has already set a precedent in direct contradiction to what Holder suggested (and again, later recanted). That precedent being Guantanamo Bay, and requiring non-citizens of this country be tried in a court of law, and being afforded the same legal rights as citizens. To then turn around and say that citizens could be executed in violation of those rights we're giving to non-citizens is completely and utterly mind-blowing.
