Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Constitution History Law Politics Terrorism

The Senate OK’s Man Who Told Obama – it’s OK to Kill Americans without a Trial

A sad moment took place in the Senate chamber yesterday. The Senate voted to confirm David Barron’s appointment to the federal bench. David Barron is the man who authored the drone members giving the Obama administration legal cover to kill American citizens overseas without a trial.

Some have argued that terrorists give up their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms by enjoining in combat against the United States (my dear friend and patriot David Whitley has argued this on these pages). But I disagree. We have a legal process whereby a citizen renounces their citizenship and gives up certain rights guaranteed to Americans but not to non-citizens. (I personally believe that there may still be a moral case to argue that drone warfare or the selective killing of non-citizens is also wrong – but that’s not the argument I am making today.) The Constitution GUARANTEES American citizens certain rights, even when they are KNOWN to have committed crimes against our country.

If a mass murderer is cornered with hands stained blood red and the proof of his crimes in plain sight… our law enforcement officers are still not allowed to simply order him killed. If a criminal flees to another country, we do not send our military to assassinate him… even if he flees to the Middle East.

Nobel-peace-drone-ObamaIf a suspected, or known, American terrorist is loose in another nation but not engaged in combat against us – the Constitution demands that he have due process of the law. I take no joy in saying that I would allow the man to live – but how can I demand my Constitutional rights while denying them of others?

How can we demand that President Obama and the Democrats (and the Republicans) honor our laws… but then make exceptions where the Constitution and Bill of Rights have no exception? It is not fair. It is not just. It is not right. We cannot hold some to one standard and then hold ourselves to a different standard when it suits us.

I hate terrorism. It is pure evil to victimize the innocent and use them as props in war while also claiming to be righteous and hiding behind your petty religion. (I also hate non-Islamic terrorism – but in today’s world, the vast majority of terrorism is condoned and conducted by Islamic terrorists.)

Rand Paul stood yesterday to decry the confirmation of David Barron to the federal bench and gave an impassioned speech against his nomination. It is well worth your time to listen – especially if you have doubts about what I’ve written above. Perhaps Rand Paul can say it better than I.

I was also shocked (sincerely – not sarcastically) to see the far-left of the Democrat Party fold like a cheap suit and vote to confirm Barron. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have both stood against government use of drones in the past… but both voiced their support for Barron’s nomination. In fact, only two Democrats voted against confirmation – Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), both hailing from more conservative states. Not a single liberal Democrat who have long bemoaned the use of drones stood to stop the most EXTREME supporter of drone warfare ever nominated to the federal bench.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

Watch out folks – we may soon find drones flying over our heads looking for terrorists to kill. Remember Joe Biden, Harry Reid and other Democrats have all called Tea Party supporters and various other conservatives… terrorists.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He's also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. You can read more of his writing at Eagle Rising.
Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children.

  • junkmailbin

    Citizen enemy combatants deserve the same treatment as any enemy, if they turn themselves in than they will get a military trial like any enemy , if they do not, than they can be attacked without notice like any enemy

  • OldVeteran

    “Open the door!” Allow the killing of Americans because some leader thinks or feels those people must die. Leaders change……….not one man in charge for life ( hopefully) can use this form of justice for his or her side. The man who wants this form of “control” should volunteer to be a practice target to make sure it works.

  • howe joseph

    I served 28 years in the military and I don’t have a problem with military leaders using a drone strike in a war theatre, because it protects and serves the survival of American soldiers and the greatest nation in the world. Having said that, I would not want to see an innocent human being killed by our government without due process, unless the American citizen abroad was declared a traitor in absentia for solid valid reasons. It is too much power to give to any President or any man and violates what our Constitution stands for. My biggest problem with the Obama drone strike effort is not killing bona-fide terrorist, but what no one hears about is the thousands of innocent men, women and children that have been killed with drone strikes in the middle east. Just recently a dozen dirt farmers in Pakistan were terminated with a drone strike on a suspected terrorist compound. That’s nuts. I am saddened by the escalation of drone strikes that is doing more harm to the USA by turning revengeful tribesmen into martyrs that kill our soldiers and our citizens abroad. Think about it, what would you do if someone killed an innocent loved member of your family, maybe someone who is the center of your life.
    Is this what we are as a nation, I hope not. Precision well thought out drone strikes could be used without mass civilian casualties, no need to justify funding.

    • Onan Coca

      You bring up a very interesting point howe.
      Why can’t these American terrorists be tried in absentia before they are executed by drone strike. We can offer them the opportunity to stand trial – give them legal counsel – have a prosecutor present the governments case….
      If they are found guilty of a capital crime – then we can discuss the use of drone as method of execution.

  • http://treeofliberty14.blogspot.com/ Irredeemable Gary

    Here’s a thought.

    What the hell is any American doing collaborating with a known enemy?

    We love the freedom afforded us by God and protected by the constitution, but when an individual exercises that freedom in a manner that puts them in harms way, we want ‘due process.’ That’s foolish.

    Unless an individual is offering humanitarian aide, they do not belong in the theatre of battle. Period.

  • knight2

    We as a people of this nation have The Constitution of The United States and our forefathers to thank for our freedoms and security. But if we allow anyone to start murdering any US citizen, “suspected” of any crime, without due process of law, then we are doomed to fail as a nation. When we start to allow our elected POTUS to ignore The Constitution and what laws to enforce, what parts of his oath when he took office to uphold and throw away the rest, to lie, deny, and block the truth….then Obama is failing as a president and as a human being.

    • http://treeofliberty14.blogspot.com/ Irredeemable Gary

      Okay, so let me get this straight.

      You have somebody like Adam Gadahn, (Adam Yahiye Gadahn is an American who is a senior operative, cultural interpreter, spokesman and media advisor for the Islamist group al-Qaeda. Since 2004, he appeared in a number of videos produced by al-Qaeda as “Azzam the American”. Gadahn converted to Islam in 1995, at the age of 17, at a California mosque and is described as a “homegrown,” meaning that he has converted to an ideology so firmly that he is now willing to harm his country of origin. )

      Who has repeatedly called for terrorist activities toward the US, and has been instrumental in the continued assault on American military.

      He resides in the middle east and collaborates on a daily basis with very bad guys, and you’d like to offer him due process? Friend, beside the fact he has renounced the US, due process is not for our enemies.

      And, if an American puts himself in the company of bad guys for his own personal gain, and we airmail a message to the bad guys, there is no one responsible for the demise of that American except himself.

      I despise the president with every fibre of my being because he is an enemy of the constitution. But on this one issue, he is at worst in the grey zone.

  • http://cogitarus.wordpress.com/ ★✩★ David ★✩★

    This is a very controversial issue (much like dropping a nuclear bomb on a city to end a war). I would agree with the argument presented here as it relates to nearly any individual, in any situation, in any state or territory of the United States of America — being it an individual engaged in a criminal act against another individual. That is not this issue here. And that issue would apply equally to non-citizens.

    The issue here is “war.” War against the United States of America. We all know that the rules of war suspend the general practices of lawyers and courtrooms for the rules of engagement in the theater of war. There is a basic level of ethics, tactics (of which terror of civilians, non uniformed gorilla warfare, hiding behind innocent people are all prohibited). Those on the battlefield understand the consequences of being there.

    The crimes in question in this argument are not against a person — but the “whole of the people.” These crimes are treasonous and a clear affirmation, a complete rejection of anything related to “citizenship.” Once engaged in this activity of “war” not merely “criminal” behavior — especially as a leader in the activity — I do firmly believe it does justify focusing selectively on that person for death. While alive they are a constant threat to all Americans and other innocent lives.

    Those that disagree with this approach have their reasons — but I have yet to hear a sound argument against it. All I hear are the shouts of rhetorical questions about using drones or otherwise killing Americans within the United States after a tyrannical government deems (the Tea Party, pro-life movement, home schoolers, small government advocates, anti-IRS groups, militias or those opposed to a BLM land grab or) any one of a whole host of political advocacy groups as domestic terrorists.

    That flatly is not the issue here. We are not talking about petty or even a felony. If that were the case I would be with you 100%. That argument makes sense. But this issue isn’t about crime or an individual’s day in court — this is about war

    Perhaps a better man to explain this is Daniel Greenfield (who wrote about this subject just today). A terrific and prolific writer he takes Rand Paul to task for his straw man and clouded arguments on this subject.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/

  • adrianvance

    We are living in a post-Constitution America.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative,” http://adrianvance.blogspot.com When you speak fine ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  • ary

    Saying that the Constitution is malleable 3x, or saying that we are in a post-Constitution America does not make it truth. However, with a complicit, corrupt media that is in the pocket of the administration and threatened by the administration’s spying and vengefulness, the administration and the Harry Reid’s of our country would like us all to think so.
    “Terrorist” and “racist”, just like “global warming” are so overused as to be far short of the evidence based truth — yet they continue to be used conveniently to silence dissent and to create fear based compliance — truly a form of governmental and societal individual/group bullying and harassment. What is fair for ___ is fair for the ____! Justice in the hands of those with a personal and social agenda is not justice at all, merely another version of “create a crisis” (by distorting or denying or avoiding facts), then “never let a crisis go to waste”!
    The only reason one can even propose such a notion of a post-Constitutional America is that evil flourishes when good men do nothing & say nothing to avoid false charges/rhetoric of their “obstructionism”!
    The elected Congressmen and Congresswomen of America and the appointed, agenda-driven judges have contaminated due process and the rule of law, focusing on socialistic changes as a route to job security, rather than upholding the laws of the land.
    When the law is in disagreement with the agenda of the appointed and sometimes illegally elected officials, or with the agendas of “boutique” groups of people– citizens or not!!, our media, governors, mayors, Congresspeople, and attorneys-general discourage adherence to laws and even encourage civil disobedience.
    When confronted with evidence based truths, these same corrupt politicians use “legal” and social maneuvers to vilify and to conduct media-trials of individuals and groups, again without “due process”…in order to ensure votes, repress differing opinions and true cultural “diversities”, and they thereby bludgeon into silence those who dare to disagree.
    One comment talks about “war against America”.
    Opinion: Our president and his administration, appointed judges at all levels and attorneys, along with social-change/one world advocates have an ongoing war against America and American citizens and against the laws of the United States.
    We are still a Nation Under God (first and foremost!), no matter what the actions or words of mere ambitioius, wanna-be-gods/legacy-makers imply. That we are under God is and will remain an unchanging truth.
    We need to each ask ourselves, read and research to find truth:
    Are the actions of this administration treason or a mere media “war against America”?? If it is true that this administration is guilty of treason, what is the penalty for their behaviors? Are there enough good men or women in Congress who will promote truth and endure the consequences of truth-telling to reclaim American and act for the good of the United States of America?

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to a friend