General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: It's Just Shocking What the Drone War Cheerleaders Are Willing to Say Out Loud [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The alternative is to have some independent body that reviews plans to use drones and OKs or denies requests for their use on a case-by-case basis.
Drones could be a double-handled sword.
If we use drones on those we think are dangerous to us, those who are dangerous to us may get drones and use them on us.
We need to think carefully about what we are doing here.
It is true that drones do not kill and frighten as many innocent people as the bombs of WWII did. But it is also true, that drones can surprise unsuspecting innocents, something that bombs and actually putting in troops to find and imprisons people do not do.
So there are a lot of moral issues that need to be discussed and resolved before declaring drones to be OK or not.
American citizens have a right to habeas corpus. In case of an "insurrection" the president may suspend habeas corpus.
Article I, Section 9 U.S. Constitution
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
The president needs to comply with the Constitution if he is suspending habeas corpus. Are we in a state of rebellion. Has the public safety been invaded? How are these things defined legally?
All these questions and probably a number more need to be decided before we start improvising away from the Constitution and perhaps watching our freedom be eroded out of existence.
By the way, I do not want to insult you personally but I think I should remind people in general that Article I of the Constitution concerns the powers of Congress. The NDAA was enacted by Congress but I don't know whether it stated that we are in a state of rebellion or that the public safety has been invaded. I don't know whether Congress satisfied the Constitutional requirements before passing it.