CHICAGO - Should the Obama Administration have the authority to use drones to assassinate Americans overseas or elsewhere the Administration believes could be a threat to Americans security? Is it possible that the question is even being asked? Tribune columnist John Kass writes Thursday about the Obama drone controversy that is making it's way to the headlines - ever so gradually and stealthily:
Carney must be talking about some other little booklet. He can't mean our American Constitution. If he actually believes that the Constitution allows the president to kill Americans without trial, someone should lead him by the nose to a loony bin.
Just think about what the president's assassination campaign means. Not for the terrorists, who deserve their fate. But for the rest of us. A president has put it in writing: He can kill you if he finds that you're a threat.
Many of us — and to my shame I include myself — bought into many Bush Republican policies after al-Qaida killed thousands of our countrymen on Sept. 11, 2001. And then came more cameras watching us, and more eavesdropping, and a steady erosion of American privacy.
It came in the name of efficiently thwarting the terrorists. Now the supreme efficiency is offered by a president who campaigned in opposition to waterboarding terrorists for information to find Osama bin Laden.
The president's drone strikes against American citizens overseas "are legal, they are ethical and they are wise," said White House press secretary Jay Carney. He added that such drone strikes are "fully consistent with our Constitution."
So, do you agree or disagree with Obama's plans to us drones to assassinate Americans that may be a threat to America?