Excuse us...but did he miss the part about - "Need not be actively involved in any plot to harm the US..." language in that epistle?

Damn funny stuff. As Senator, Obama railed against ´possible torture of a US citizen´. As president - he´s fine w/ offing ´em based on ´suspicion´ and without Due Process.

So...when people refer to Obama as a ´Constitutional Law Professor´ - and the room doesn´t immediately bust out laughing, is that some sort of ´intentional effort´ not to ´appear racist´?

It´s almost as if the entire liberal side of the country has their mouth super-glued shut on this issue. Had it surfaced under *Bush*, the media hot air produced would melt this weekend´s Northern chill in a heartbeat.

Col. Peters, why this? Why now? You´ve never spoken as such prior. Has DC gone totally insane?

So Peters is threating our sucker called Obama? He sure is because Obama is taking up arms against fellow citizens.

Good call, #1. Obama´s entire career and especially his presidency can be summed up as an ´intentional effort to not appear racist".

It´s distressing that Obama has so divided the country, that many conservatives suspend judgment, if not reason on anything having to do with Obama. When acting in his role as Commander and Chief, with duty of defending the U.S., he has the right to order the killing of any military (not criminal) threat, even on U.S. soil. FDR did it when one of a group of saboteurs turned out to be an American citizen.

Which is not to say that Obama and the Dems have not been total hypocrites on the issue, but conservatives need to understand that tying Obama´s hands would tie the hands of every president who comes after him.

It is now officially less than four years before Obama leaves office. In the meantime, let´s try to minimize the damage he does till then without creating new ones of our own that will hurt us and the country after Obama´s gone.

No, if an American kills his fellow citizens, the police catch him, provide evidence of his wrongdoing, a jury looks at it all and decides on a punishment. So far that punishment has never included a drone strike to "kill the sucker..." And if this is such a great idea, why don´t we put a drone up for the LAPD ex-cop who´s on the run for murder. Let´s just skip the capture, trial, blah, blah, blah... and "kill the sucker, period".

Due process? 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments? Who needs ´em? Let the military men/women operating the joysticks handle it. They´ve done such a stellar job with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam...

#2 - yes.

So, Col. Peters, if the citizens take up arms against the government within Our Borders, are you saying it´s legal to Kill us by Drone?

Sure sounds like it!

I don´t trust this administration.

It´s not like this is being done here in the states.
If there are US citizens in Yemen or Afghanistan that are aiding terrorists, they´re traitors and deserve to die.

As far as I´m concerned, this is the only thing that Obongo has gotten right in the last 4 years.

The disconnect here is that the dems were demanding Geneva Convention rights for the terrorists at Gitmo.

Obamao wanted to bring KSM to NYC for a civil trial.

funny how this government will give constitutional rights to Illegal aliens, but yet kill citizens without due process of law totally ignoring the constitutional rights of those citizens even if they are out of the country. I´m sorry but if we allow this to happen because they are and I quote "terrorists" what happens when you and I are labeled "terrorists" because of what we believe in.
We are still a nation of laws and we have the right of a jury trial, and we are to be considered innocent until convicted guilty. Those "conservatives" who have no problems with this don´t understand the Constitution of the USA and why it was written that way. Better go back and look up the period of time before the revolutionary war and find out what happened to citizens by the government controlled by the English at the time.

The issue is how is it controlled. I´m not in favor of giving Obama any more authority. I don´t trust him with the authority he already has. I don´t mind the killing of the Al awaki types, but why don´t we try to capture some of them and interrogate them? It´s quite obvious that Obama doesn´t want to do that.

We´re not allowed to waterboard or put underwear on the heads of islamic terror suspects but it´s okay to KILL American citizens who are "suspected of terrorism". Ask yourselves one question: Who are considered "terrorists" these days? The world is upside down. We´re living in an Orwellian world.

If it is justified to kill them then why not: capture them, torture them until they tell us everything, and then execute them. They´re just as dead. We have some useful information. Plus we aren´t killing people willy-nilly from anonymous altitudes. At least we are grabbing them and making them talk and finding out if they really should be killed.

#13, what do you mean "when"? It´s already happening.

This is about ´lethal force against American citizens.´ It is not about ´drones.´The White Paper does not mention ´drones.´This ´White Paper´ pretty well specifies that lethal force may be used against a U.S. citizen outside the United States who ´is a senior operational leader of al-Qa´ida actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.´

I personally don´t see anything wrong with that position. That this action can be determined by ´an informed hi-level official´ is somewhat disturbing. Who isn´t an´informed hi-level official´ in Washington? This gives life-or-death power to un-specified people.

But then, if the ones targeted are the ones specified...again....they are planning attacks on the U.S!
But there are three sentences that stand out toward the end. I quote them below.The omission of the phrase "outside the United States" in these sentences, IMO, just might negate the focus of the whole paper.

"...A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination. In the Department´s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban...."

These sentences do concern me!

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Whenever you expand the power of government - always remember that Adolf Hitler was voted into office.

Excuse me, what part of "take up arms against the United States" confuses you? We are at war. If Bush did this we would back him. Why not Obama?

Killing 16 year old boys is not part of my agendy in fighting the war on terrorism and I doubt it was part of Bushes. Allowing Obummer and his minions to get away with this is a big mistake. Think HITLER!

Hmm, let look at that headline quote.
If an American, say like the DHS, takes up arms, say like 1.6 billion bullets, against fellow citizens, unlike say illegal aliens or jihadis from the ME, then you kill the sucker, period.
Be careful what you wish for.

In too many ways, Fox Cable News has gone
off the rails. At one time, it was THE channel to watch, for me. About a year ago, I felt that enough was enough and cut my viewing time to just a few hours a week, so that all I now watch on TV is sports and some movies. A perfect example, on The Five, which someone else in our home had turned on Thurs, Feb 7, these 5 idiots were LAUGHING and making jokes while the videos of Flash Mobs destroying peoples business were being displayed. To me these 5 people were sickening. They are so enamored with each other that they are like a blob of protoplasm that reacts in one manner and it is no longer even a news program, or informational. Fox Cable Channel in a nutshell.

As Americans, we believe in a God-given (not Congress-given, not Court-given, not even Constitution-given, but "God-given") Right to Life, which does not mean "pacifism" but which does at least mean you have a right not to be intentionally targeted and killed unless you have been found guilty of a capital crime or are presently involved in an act of aggression.

We also believe (Constitution, 14th Amendment) that a citizen must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law.

And that is not synonymous with "The Say-So of the Powerful".

There are excellent reasons why these rights are so prominent in our Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution. It´s because if you give some "informed high official" a license to kill, you have given him a power not safely placed in the hands of any human being.

This is the kind of tyranny that gives tyranny a bad name.

And for conservatives to want to limit the government´s power to tax us, but not the government´s power to kill us --- people, this is insanity beyond all telling.

I´m with #11. If they are on a foreign battlefield (which is often indistinct in this time of irregular combatants) cavorting with the enemy, then I say vaporize them if we can. We use drones because they cannot be reached any other way and the risk is nil. Obviously, this does not pertain to any action within our borders, so maybe we need language to emphasize that.