Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[Sheilbh]

The constitution provides for a declaration of war though, which I will note was not done in either of those cases.

And the last declaration of war was WW2

[Phillip V]

[Razgovory]

Ugh.  That's as bad as those Tom the dancing bug cartoons.

[Ed Anger]

Dinosaur cartoons are funnier.

[CountDeMoney]

That's worse that Tom Tomorrow with diarrhea.

[Eddie Teach]

That's the worst cartoon I've read since the last one Phil posted. 

[Tonitrus]

Reminds me of Chick Tracts.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thanks.  Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally?  I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action  is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US. 

The Insular Cases.  Johnson v. Eisentrager.  US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
I also consider the Chinese Exclusion Case to fall under this category.

[Phillip V]

Fugitive LAPD-killer is first drone target on U.S. soil

"It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil."

http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil

[Razgovory]

That's a stupid story and then I saw stupid comments on it.  I feel dumber just reading that.  How is that materially different then using a helicopter to search for a fugitive?

[Neil]

The difference is that drones are scary, mmmkay?

[grumbler]

Thanks.  Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally?  I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action  is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US. 

The Insular Cases.  Johnson v. Eisentrager.  US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
I also consider the Chinese Exclusion Case to fall under this category.

Thanks.  I couldn't find any but US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, either.   Still, the latter is pretty interesting, especially the pinhead-dancing that allowed the Supremes to conclude that the rights of 'the people" mentioned in the Fourth Amendment are of an entirely different character than the rights of "persons" in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

While, on the face of it, US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would seem to support the reasons for my confusion, it does answer the question I posed to you.  Thanks.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thanks.  I couldn't find any but US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, either.   Still, the latter is pretty interesting, especially the pinhead-dancing that allowed the Supremes to conclude that the rights of 'the people" mentioned in the Fourth Amendment are of an entirely different character than the rights of "persons" in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.

The Insular Cases were a series of cases relating to the US administration of territories acquired from Spain  after 1898 - some of them are actually cited in the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion.  They held that certain constitutional guarantees were not applicable in the territories such as jury rights (not entirely suprising given the nasty little counter-insurgency campaign fought in the Phillipines).   Johnson v. Eisentrager was a prosecution of German saboteurs in WW2 - some have claimed that it stands for the proposition that non-citizens lack the right to the writ of habeas corpus, although the Supreme Court did not accept that sweeping reading in the terror cases.  The Chinese Exclusion Case upheld the nation's first federal immigrant exclusion law despite the awkward fact that no such enumerated power seems to exist - the Court invoked the inherent powers of the US as a sovereign, apparently confusing the sovereign People with their limited instrument, the federal government.  The potential implications of that reasoning are pretty far reaching as it suggests that constitutional restraints are not entirely binding the more the federal government acts in a traditional sovereign capacity.

[The Minsky Moment]

My beef is that with regard to US military action, the only concern needs to be the application of the law of war, unless we're talking about civilian agencies operating these drones. 

Does it really turn entirely on what agency of the Exec branch flies the drone?  Because then evading certain legal niceties merely requires that a guy in a suit and tie hand over his controller to a guy in a uniform.

[fhdz]

That's worse that Tom Tomorrow with diarrhea.