I'm uncomfortable with it if there is a realistic possibility of the threat being caught by authorities within the host country. But there is a far more pressing issue congressman and that would be your failure to move this nation forward with the irresponsible sequester fallout. I found your response to an inquiry on this problem absurd, unrealistic, and demonstrative of why you continue to fail our district. Sit back sir and think about how you have served us in the last 12 years. We sent you to Washington with a balanced budget and you helped to squander that, voted for policy that left the nation's streets dangerous with gun violence and did absolutely nothing. Why don't you tell the district how many ships were in Norfolk when you went to congress and how many there are now. Want me to sir? Do you want to explain to the district what you have done to the middle class since you won't? I challenged you sir to conduct a poll on the minimum wage and you refused. In fact I had to contact your office more than once to get an answer on your support for it. It shocks nobody that you abandon the struggling with the same discredited arguments that you use to abandon the middle class. You didn't tell the whole truth on the Keystone pipeline, you actually voted to shove the nation into default sir, a deliberate attempt to screw the private sector and it did exactly that. You refused to pressure your leadership to vote on critical jobs bills, voted against the Violence Against Women Act, interfered with a University policy of non-discrimination that was really nothing but gay bashing, refused to apologize to the Attorney General, won't respond to the constituents concerns about vote suppression in America and you refused to even show up with other representatives to accompany President Obama on his recent visit to Newport News. Don't you think it was important to tell the district that the award you recently received from a manufacturing organization is a PAC!!! Don't you think its interesting that this organization won't even respond to the question about the minimum wage? From debt, to wars, to opposing tax cuts for the middle class, to outright misleading the citizens on health care I find your service to this district totally unacceptable congressman Forbes. I would urge you to immediately change course and cease obstruction that has harmed the country in profound ways that all align with your tenure in Washington. You ARE the problem congressman Forbes. The record demonstrates this in compelling ways and the citizens have had enough of this.

If a US citizen is in a foreign country that is waging war with the United States and that US citizen is actively supporting the war against the US, then he becomes an enemy combatant, vacates his US citizenship and is a legitimate target. Same applies if he is out of the US as an active member of an organization such as Al Qaida that is at war with the US.

Have the United States abandoned due process of law once and for all? Are we no longer a constitutional government? We are talking about US citizens. If these citizens of the US are enemy combatants, no matter where they are, then they are chargeable under our law as traitors. But they are citiznes with rights to a fair trial. If they are found guilty, then they should be punished. But I can see no reason why we should ever deny a US citizen his or her rights to due process. Otherwise, the government or its officials are placing themselves above the law to carry out such actions. That's tyranny.

If the operation is military and no CIA I think this would be acceptable.

Short answer: Yes Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given. A US Citizen who "(is) located in a foreign country who is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force" is by definition a traitor and has abandoned their citizenship. A determination should be made that this person is a member of a foreign adversarial force, their citizenship revoked and then they should be executed.

Absolutely not. First, they could be wrong or lie. That automatically means due process must always be used. Just as important, if we can do that to our citizens in foreign lands, other countries can do it to their own citizens in our country. Drone technology is New. We need to be setting RESPONSIBLE precedents here. After our fellow citizens become collateral damage, we will be forced to care about it then! It should never be that easy to kill someone, purposely or accidentally.

While I support the attack of a person citizen or not tobe attacked if guilty of perpetrating crimes against humanity specifically against the United States, OR about to do so, I also think it is much more prudent to capture such an individual than to harvest more information to. Better learn how to defend ourselves from much terrorists and terrorist states. Due process is such a sacred ideal that to go around killing those we identify as enemy before getting everything out of them we can. So due process works both ways. Civil rights and amenities are simply am waste of time before it is determined what the realities of an individual's status may make state security less effective.

They should go to the courts, have the individual declared an enemy combatant and let the shooting begin.

If we are at war, traitors can be tried in Absentia by a court. Then the drones could enact the court's decision.

Ai a united states citizen, I am protected by the constitution (from my own government). It does not matter where I travel of for what reason, I am still a citizen of the united states and protected by law. Rule of law, states that the accused is to be considered as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This government cannot kill innocent citizens, no matter where they are. If they are in a foreign country, that countries laws must be observed. Ask for cooperation and arrest him and deport him back to our courts for judgement as to his guilt or innocence. If he resist and endangers any one, then killing him would be appropreate. But only according to that sovereign nations laws, not ours.

I put no, because the point of due process is to prove they are a senior leader. Till they are proven to be a senior leader they are only suspect.

Due process of law is required for all citizens...no exceptions. Failure to uphold the constitution reflects a corrupt government. Killing citizens without due process concentrates too much power in the hands of the morally bankrupt few.

The key here that any red blooded American who answers, "Yes" to this question has missed is that this alleged traitor is alleged until guilty in our courts of law. Without the due process, even for a heinous traitor of the likes, all who call themselves citizens of this country would essentially surrender our rights to the "High-ranking officials of the US government." Thus opening the door to socialism, communism and the oppressive governments those ideas inherently carry and irreversibly eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, I believe we in so many facets have already handed over our rights, no, our responsibilities to hold an informed opinion about not only the statues and policies of the government but the consequences of those policies and their application to our way of life. The sad part is I see us on an almost unrecoverable spiral headed directly towards just that. Why? In my opinion the reason things like this and or “gun control” raises such heated discussion is that we are a people who live in a “microwave society” and we want the quickest solution/resolution. Then we jump to ridiculous conclusions of Eutopic solutions and stand firm upon them without an open ear or an open eye to the possibility of standing in error. Error I say? Yes error. What we all must do is form our opinion based upon a common foundation not our feelings about the situation. For me (and all of us) that foundation is (and should be) the founding documents that built this nation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. If my stance on a topic is founded on the principles in those documents then it may not seem to be the popular opinion or emotion but the consequences of that stance will preserve our free way of life. If, on the other hand they fly in the face of those principles then they set the tone for an irreplaceable erosion of the core of our way of free life. But take heart, we are a free nation, still governed by the people, still for the people. What does this alleged traitor deserve? Obviously he deserves a full frontal view of the incoming cruise missile, but only after he has been tried by the principals he has allegedly rejected. He deserves his day in court just as you or I would. I say we set public notice, open the public court doors, and if they want to defend themselves the opportunity is available, let the evidence speak and the findings of our court be heard. Once they are found as traitors carry out whatever sentence by whatever means. Treason carries the highest of penalties because it is erosion at our freedoms as individuals and as a nation. Now if we come face to face with the alleged traitor and their “associated force” and they shoot at us, then it’s a matter of self/national defense not a question of citizenship. Notice how self and national are interchangeable here; still for the people, by the people.

If there is significant evidence that this person actively trying too harm US citizens or perform acts of terrorism against our country, then this person is a clear and present danger to our country and should be dealt with accordingly. If we are unable to capture him or her, but are able to perform a drone strike, I feel we have a duty to do so.

If a US citizen joins a group that is at war against the United States, is actively engaged in that group with intent to attack the US, and is in a foreign country or territory is a situation where capture is very unlikely, either by US or foreign officials, and the danger is immediate, then that person becomes a legitimate target. This is much the same as a traitor knowingly killed in a active fire fight. Even police forces can use deadly force in self defense without "due process" in court..

The only "fair" targets are those who are at war with us. Terrorism is war without borders, but that doesn't automatically mean that we can carry the war to "whomever, where-ever" that "seems" to be a "high-level" target. Good Grief! There are some hunters that would like nothing less than the demolition of the present government regulations! Does that make them targets?! Some would have us think so! If you want regulations, regulate the Government! Someone once said that "the only way to control an honest man is with more regulations." Then you end up with no honest men... There are 536 "targets" in DC (sorry Randy, but there are some who don't like you too...); people want to clean house and bring a whole new batch... SMALL government... Yeah, let's not hold our breath, but keep working for it... We COULD accomplish it!

What is happening to our country? No more invasion on our liberties. There are too many freedoms being taken away from Americans! Enough is enough - drones flying around our own air space on mission to take an American's life without due process is a BIGGER issue.

Can we really declare war on a group of people without boarders(congress hasn't by the way)? Do we care at all about the country's that get bombed, that are trying to fight terrorism too? Even if these are the worst people in the world, we wouldn't want other countries sending missiles into our land if they were here. Besides that, we can't even keep drugs out of our own prisons, can we cleanse the world with our might? If they are on there way here, let them have it, if not, lets try to stop shaking the bees nest.

As much as I despise a traitor, we are a nation of laws. David Kiracofe's comment is right on the mark.

Congressman: May I suggest that you stop spending time on these poles and focus your attention on resolving the polarization of Congress and the Administration concerning the budget and deficit. A budget has not been passed in four years. I am going to be forced to take a 22 day furlough and that amounts to a 20% pay cut. Are you willing to take a 20% pay cut???????

We are using drones on US Citizens who have no affiliations with anybody but the US. So I say no take them to court.

Thomas, give it a rest. You say the same thing every time.

Who decides who a "senior operational leader of Al-Qaida" is and how? Many people have been killed in America and by America for no good reason at all. HOWEVER, if Americans are in top leadership positions of terrorist organizations, they need to be dealt with.

...and just how does a memo leak out from our Administration. I really wish our elected officials would grow up and do what they've been sent to Washington to do.

On foreign soil, adding an enemy, YES. No drones at home for any reason please. Slippery slope. Let's don't go there. And while we are at it, Why has Homeland Security purchased 2700 "light tanks" and millions of bullets? Founders, roll over.

I'm more worried about the generality of 'an associated force'. If I was in a foreign country, got lost, and asked someone for directions, would that 'associate' me with the person? U.S. Citizens have given more than anything for the freedoms that include our 'Innocent until proven guilty' right.

This person would need to be tried and convicted in absencia. We are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of our peers.

"With which the United States is at war" - I say yes, if it's the best choice at the time, and if it will limit the possibilities of loss of lives and casualties of our men and women serving our country. Anyone, citizen or not, who becomes a traitor or turns against the U.S. to become an enemy combatant against the U.S - The above sentence also applies.

I heard in the news that drones could be used in this country. I do not believe that the President should ever have the sole right or responsibility of making a decision such as the use of drones in the U.S. or another country. We have laws on the books where there must be a consensus between the President and many other government agencies, i.e., military, CIA, FBI, for the sole purpose of checks and balances and no one person is responsiblity for making such a decision.

This is a very slippery slope to travel. Once an exception to our Constitution is made then all else is justified by the left.

I think Congress, the president, and the senate should not get paid until they figure out our debt problem. Maybe that will take a huge chunk out of our deficit. I know if I was not doing my job good enough to turn a profit I would get fired and would be replaced with someone that would take less pay and do a better job just to keep that job! Our government has gotten lazy and greedy.

I am not supportive of the policy as written. I would be with two changes: First, authorization for action against US citizens in foreign countries not in combat areas should be limited to the President only. No other official should be so empowered. There must be no confusion about either authority or responsibiility for the action. Second, the action should be limited to only instances where the US Congress has authorized a state of war.

I don't believe that we should be targeting people on US soil. If the person is an American ,he should have due process of the law. Citizens of the US have these rights, unlike the aliens to this country. The only rights they have are the god given rights. Not any that the American people get. Which is the reason they can't vote until they are citizens .and many other rights they can't have until they are citizens. If they were able to vote while illegal it would be like the American people going to Mexico ,and voting in their elections. We are not an have never been a democracy. We always have been a Republic. In fact Ben Franklin after voting for the countries status was asked by a lady. Which do we have ? And he replied a Republic if you can keep it.

Using the memo as a basis for taking lethal action against a U.S. citizen is poor governance. I feel that legislation addressing this issue needs to be issued. The third statement upon your list could be used to mean anything; therefore, clearer language will be needed. Personally, if the citizen is a combatant, they are due all protections under the law. If contact, in good faith, is attempted and they are hostile, lethal force should be authorized. Similar to a law enforcement situation. In a situation where this is not feasible, like they are in enemy territory and contact would be impossible without putting the contactors in immanent danger, lethal force should be authorized. The legislation should follow this line of thinking. If the president and congress want to address this issue, something must be issued.

Those that are flying the drones and have their finger on the firing key took an oath of office and did solemnly swear (or affirm) that they would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that they would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and they took this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that they would well and faithfully discharge their duties of their office on which they entered; and so help them God. To me this is clearly a domestic enemy. The answer to the question is clearly, yes. Let’s keep the politics off the battle field before it gets a lot of brave men killed.

If the Operative cannot be captured without losses to our own troops then, yes, take them out!

Use of Drones against US citizens? Well, overseas, yes, when there is irrefutable evidence, the Congress authorizes it (not at the sole discretion of the President or his designees) , and the host country agrees, tacitly or explicitly. In the USA - h*ll no! There are way too many ways for law enforcement to capture criminals once their location is known. Use of drones in the US is asking for trouble - and what about possible mistakes and collateral damage?? Did I forget to mention that this would be yet another step in eroding our Constitutional rights - The current President and his Administration seems intent on bypassing, changing, or outright ignoring our Constitution (written by men of sheer genius.) Thank you.

Had only President Lincoln insisted on trials for the Confederate army we would be better off today. Every Confederate soldier had the right to a fair trail, but was denied that right by the "tyrant" Lincoln. Lincoln used every weapon at his disposal to end the war against the nation. He even encouraged the development of new weapons and a horrifically bloody style of warfare. Had only he stepped back and said, "well, we mustn't violate the Constitution as it is more important than the very nation I was elected to protect." Perhaps the same rules should apply to the police when citizens fire upon them. But alas, that is another story.

Who is this "informed high level official"? In which branch of gov't? I would feel better if more than official in more than one branch was involved in the decision -- preferably including the Judicial branch. And ONLY on foreign soil.

Yeah, the uh.."if capture is infeasible" part seems too generalized and fishy to me. I am against the use of drones anyway, I think its the most cowardiced form of warfare and too "Big Brother"-ish for my conscience. This is just another example of the Administration not having any military experience and trying to exact US policy like we're living in a video game.

"Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of the policy" Never mind the constitutionality of the policy, what about the morality?!

Yes. Within the given scenario as presented, where there appears to be no question that the "citizen" is the AQ leader, he is an enemy combatant. Maybe he was born here to foreign parents on vacation, but actually lived his entire life overseas. If the host country can't, or won't extradite, take him out anyway you can. Having said that, I question how the U.S. has any jurisdiction over anything that happens overseas. If a U.S. citizen in Chicago writes a blog that the Chinese don't like, can they arrest and deport him? Maybe send their own UAV to target him?

I personally believe that any person who joins al qa'ida is an enemy of this country and by joining this or any associated organization has there by renounced his citizenship , and by doing so should not be afforded the protections guarenteed citizens of the country he hates and wishes to destroy or damage by his actions. The idea that these treasonous enemies of my country should be afforded the protection of the Constitution and the thought that my Representative would support giving them those protections is absolutely repulsive and unconscionable to me

I find your support for giving Constitution protections to any one that has joined any organization that wishes to destroy the United States deplorable!!! When someone joins al Qa'ida they become the sworn enemy of this country and all it stands for and there by have renounced their citizenship and all rights and protections of the Constitution which they would rip up and burn afforded the opportunity . I am extremely disappointed in your standing behind these traitors to your country that you swore an oath to protect when you took office. Any more support for the enemies of my country misguided or misinformed will result in the loss of my support for you in the next election