Here's my moral dilemma when it comes to the Drone Discussion.

I think the biggest problem most people have with the drones is that the Justice Dept. has decided that they can use the program to target and kill US Citizens. Now putting aside the fact that there is a major problem with the fact that we've often killed hundreds of innocent civilians because we're bombing based on tips and guesses more than anything down there, the only thing most people care about is the implications this has on the Constitution.

We've used this option, killing an American, once: Anwar al-Awlaki. I have to wonder if the line we should be drawing should be further back a bit. Not 'should we be able to kill American citizens' but rather 'at what point does your residence abroad and treasonous actions towards your country lose you the right to citizenship"? And I say, conspiring with al-Qaeda, in many cases directing attacks and plans and even having contact with guys like the Ft. Hood Shooter and the Underwear Bomber... you have to say he had done everything short of formal revocation. Not to mention, he even applied for scholarships in Yemen claiming citizenship there to qualify (fraudulently). In al-Awlaki's mind, he was not an American. We were the infidels and he was determined to kill as many of us as possible through his al Qaeda association. In that sense I consider him a war casualty on al Qaeda's side. Not an American. Just as if some anarchist advocating the overthrow of the US Government started bombing and killing people here and police broke into his compound and shot him to death, his active involvement in murder lost him the right to safety if acquisition required force. And clearly he wasn't surrendering voluntarily.

But the wider argument being made is valid. Bushco used The Patriot Act to spy on and jail opposition activists. He jailed people from this country with no terrorist ties down in Gitmo and if they were released it was to an extradition country... their entire lives ruined. No habeas corpus, no charges - no trial - nothing. Indefinite detention without a shred of evidence required.

So we say we dislike the drone strikes on Americans and man I am hearing Right Winger conspiracy nuts using this shit against Obama constantly today, but then we need to look at the alternate process. Because as it stands the process is that potential terrorists or enemy combatants under the Patriot Act end up at Gitmo without any of the other Constitutional Rights that happen to be a part of the piece of paper in which we're railing Obama on for the Drones. Obama relented (caved depending on how you view it) to Republican pressure to not close Gitmo. So there just isn't a process in place that follows the Constitution on this at all.

Either we blow them to hell as American citizens who have not voluntarily revoked their citizenship and choose not to surrender on an opposite battlefield or we capture them and deny them all of the other rights afforded to the accused in the American justice system including right to know charges against them, right to a fair and speedy trial, right to an attorney, right to review prosecution evidence and here's a big one because I don't trust the military tribunal system, right to a fair and impartial judge and/or jury.

We offer none of that so long as Gitmo is open and the current procedures remain the same. So drones or not, we've been shitting on the Constitution for a very long time and it's well beyond time to step back and actually do this right. Close Gitmo, have trials for suspected terrorists down there (those trials worked well after the 1994 WTC bombing) and start to finally close this chapter in history.

But if we can't move the needle on a fuller, deeper discussion about Constitutional Rights at home, can we at least open dialogue about when you've revocated your rights to citizenship abroad?