An unsent letter to the President's chief counterterrorism advisor

Q29. You claim U.S. drone strikes abide by the rules of law, including the rules of war. Yet, the last time the U.S. formally declared war on another state was upon entering WWII. The U.S. Constitution requires such a formal declaration by the Congress. This body has made no such declaration against the nation states being struck by U.S. drones. How, therefore, can the administration conclude that its drone strikes conform to the highest legal code of our nation, her Constitution?    

Q30. For the sake of argument, let us suspend momentarily the issue of the legality of drone strikes. Laws cannot cover all matters of human conduct and so there will always be numerous exceptions and loopholes in laws that clever administration lawyers can find for the administration to justify the legality of certain actions. Would you concede that drone strikes by the administration violate at least the spirit, or true intent of the rule of law and that having the CIA manage the drone program is seen by the administration as a loophole in the law of war?

End of questions and letter from a conscientious human being and true patriot, one who says, "my country, please do right and no wrong" instead of saying "my country right or wrong."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).