Last month, a memo was leaked outlining the White House Administration’s policy of targeted killings of U.S. citizens overseas. Since that time, questions have been raised about the constitutionality of the policy and whether it could also be used against a U.S. citizen here in America. 

According to the memo, where the target is a U.S. citizen who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force” and is located in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities, lethal force would be lawful if:

• An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
• Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and
• The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The guarantee of due process is affirmed twice in the United States Constitution: The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment further states that “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Attorney General Eric Holder stated that due process “does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.”  Others, like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) warned against not only the targeting of American citizens without first providing due process, but doing so on American soil.  Senior Members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to President Obama requesting that the Committee be granted the opportunity to review all documents pertaining to the legal justification of drone strikes on Americans abroad.   The administration released these memos to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees; however, it refused to provide them to the House Judiciary Committee, which is charged with oversight of the Justice Department and the U.S. Constitution.

Question of the week: Should the United States government have the ability to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen located in a foreign country who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force” without due process of law?

In 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA) was introduced, calling for arbitrary and sharp spending reductions as a means of reducing the deficit. The BCA, which Congressman Forbes voted against but was passed and signed into law, calls for $984 billion in automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions composed of $492 billion from national security and $492 billion from programs such as education, law enforcement, Medicare, housing, and medical research. These cuts, through the process of sequestration, are scheduled to take place on March 1, 2013, unless Congress and the President act.

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted twice to replace the sequestration; however, the Senate has failed to act.  It has now been eighteen months since the Budget Control Act was signed into law and our nation has just weeks until sequestration takes effect. This week, the President delivered a speech, calling on Congress to avert sequestration.  According to The Washington Post, “Obama did not outline a specific proposal,” but indicated his support for tax increases and some spending cuts as a means of postponing or replacing sequestration.

Today, our national debt stands at over $16 trillion, and we have annually run a deficit of $1 trillion for the past four years.  Congressman Forbes has taken steps to champion real, effective solutions to address overspending, such as consistently supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, voting against $800 billion instimulus spending, and introducing the Congressional Accountability Pay (CAP) Act to tie the salaries of Members of Congress directly to federal spending. 

Further, since 2011, Congressman Forbes has continuously warned against dangerous cuts under sequestration, and has taken steps to prevent it:

July 2011 --- Launched an initiative called Strong Defense, Strong America to warn about the dangers of slashing defense to pay for stimulus spending
August 2011 ---- Voted against the Budget Control Act, which set up the process of sequestration
October 2011­­ ­­­­­­---- Introduced Strong Defense, Strong America Resolution
May 2012 ---- Supported legislation to replace sequestration
May 2012 ---- Launched ‘Defending our Defenders,’ a series of 7 listening sessions around the country
December 2012 -----Again supported legislation to replace sequestration

Question of the week: Do you support sequestration or an alternative spending reduction plan?

( ) I support sequestration called for under the Budget Control Act.
( ) I support an alternative plan to reduce the deficit and control spending. 
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other.

Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 

The WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) wrote a memorandum late last month detailing that the government would compensate contractors for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under "sequestration" on January 2, 2012. The memorandum said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for by the contracting federal agency.

Senator McCain estimated that legal fees could total $4 billion and pledged to deny any transfers of defense dollars to reimburse contractors for costs that could have been avoided simply by complying with the WARN Act.