Death By Drones

I find the debate over President Obama's policy of killing Americans with drones because they pose a national security threat interesting.  For example, Dick Polman, a blogger I normally find very astute, posted today on his blog that he finds Obama's explanation of his policy to be "spin" and unsuccessful spin at that.

Apparently the problem now revolves around a 1994 amendment to a crime bill passed by Congress, which prohibits Americans from killing Americans overseas.  And, Obama has apparently found a loophole which allows the drone killing to take place.  And, Polman finds this to be "spin" and poorly done "spin" at that because he still thinks the drone policy violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process.

Here is where I get confused by Polman's argument (he's is not alone in this view, but I am using him out of respect).  Polman says that Obama's policy makes the government "judge, jury and executioner" over Americans overseas planning terror attacks against America.  This, in Polman's view, is a violation of Americans' constitutional rights.

I would point out that I am not a constitutional expert by any definition.  However, I have read it a few times, and I would like to think I have a basic grasp of the main ideas.  And, as I read it, it seems to me that the Constitution only applies over those in American jurisdiction.  So, first, the 1994 law would seem to be to be unconstitutional, because how can Congress pass laws covering areas outside their realm of authority?  If I am in Sweden, for example, and I kill an American, I fully expect the Swedish government to prosecute me for that crime.  But, I would not expect the U.S. government to also be able to prosecute me.  Why should they have that authority in another country?  To carry that thought further, if I am tried and acquitted in Sweden, if the U.S. government then tried to prosecute me, wouldn't double jeopardy come into play?  But, that is a whole different can of worms.

Back to the point in question.  So, the 1994 law seems constitutionally ... questionable.  Now, what about the due process argument?  To me, we have the same problem here.  Does the U.S. Constitution cover things outside of America?  If I go to Saudi Arabia and start trying to preach Christianity and convert people, when they arrest me, can I claim my First Amendment freedom of religion and speech protections?  No, that would be illogical.  Yet, Polman and others are making the argument that the due process restrictions on the federal government DO travel beyond our borders.  How is that logical?  Our rights don't travel, but the restrictions on government do?  Why?

If I am an American who wants to commit violence against the United States (which I am NOT, by the way), and I travel to a different country and start making plans to that effect, I would not expect my constitutional protections to travel with me.  When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and follow Roman law.  I mean, if we really are going to follow this logic, if I travel to Amsterdam and hire a legal prostitute, am I facing jail time when I return to the US?  Are we going to try to legislate that, too?  I know we want to make the world like America as much as possible, but this just seems to be crossing some substantial lines here.  Again, I am not trying to encourage bad behavior against Americans at all.  I just think we need to pay attention to our own rules, and follow them consistently, and also remember that there are boundaries to our authority.

Obama is an American

For those "birthers" out there who still seem to be operating under the misinformed impression that Barack Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen and thus is ineligible to be president of the United States, time to reach into the clue bag and pull one out!

The argument seems to rest on the reality-defying belief that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, despite the publicly-released copies of his birth certificate which confirms exactly that. Instead, these people believe he was actually born in Indonesia, and thus is not a "natural born" citizen of the United States. This is an example of ignorance being dangerous to the user's health.

See, it does not matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, or Indonesia, or Kenya, or a Starbucks in Downtown Tokyo. The principle that the "birthers" are relying upon is known as jus soli, which basically means you are a citizen of whichever country in which you are born.

However, the United States acknowledges another principle of citizenship known as jus sanguinis, which means you are a citizen of whichever country your parents are citizens. So, because EVERYONE acknowledges that President Obama's mother is an American, and she obviously gave birth to him, he is therefore a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

This principle was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 (yes, over 100 years ago so do not blame an "activist" court) in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649).

So, to the "birthers" I say: Get over it. You lost. Try again next time. And, in the meantime, shut up.