Wednesday, February 6, 2013

What Changed?

During the Bush Administration, there was a huge outcry about the administration's plans to wiretap the phones of suspected terrorists living in the states who made overseas calls.  The media and liberals (sorry, that's redundant) complained about an invasion of privacy, a violation of due process, etc.  They also complained about the use of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation.

Fast forward to the next administration.  Now, it is OK to send a drone to kill American citizens living abroad if there is an imminent threat, the target has engaged in terrorist activities and the target has to be unable to be captured, even is there is no intelligence pointing to an active plot against America. 

This leads to several questions.  Who can decide if a citizen is an imminent threat to our country?  Would this be a unilateral decision?  Would congress have some input into the decisioin?  What constitutes a threat if there is no intelligence pointing to an active plot?

Why is this OK, not a violation of the right to a trial and wiretapping is an invation of privacy?

Why is waterboarding with the intent to get information so wrong, but killing a suspect without having received any threat perfectly OK?

Where will this stop?  When will these drones be used against American citizens here in our own country?  Will they be used against those practicing their right to free speech?


No comments: