Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 315

Thread: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

  1. #91
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,525

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    all of it squandered
    Bull ****

    war crimes - especially torture - that many of us who were not from the reich wing, wanted brought to international justice. that free pass by Obama was his first major disappointing decision (of many to follow)
    Bull ****

    yep, invading the wrong country. fabricating a basis to invade. insisting the VP's former firm (which was still paying him) was the only candidate to perform as a contractor - and then given a no-bid, sole source contract used to defraud the government
    Bull ****

    all it was was: torture. which was against international law and treaties we signed
    Bull ****

    an American who is also on the side of our nation's enemy is our nation's military enemy. someone we can take out like any other enemy soldier. that's all the memo was about
    you want to make it into something more because it is something Obama appropriated; therefor, to you and your cohort, you must be opposed to it. the same folks who were totally in dicknbush's corner when it came to torture. save your sanctimonious bull ****
    Bull ****

    if they survived the battlefield they were either POWs or enemy conspirators entitled to trial. i take it you would have preferred them as POWs ... to be held until the 'war on terror' was officially ended. tell us when that will be
    Bull ****

    only once they are captured and off the battle field. then they get the rights of anyone who goes to court. but you would prefer to wipe your ass with the Constitution
    Bull ****

    please point out the hypocrisy, as you and your ilk know it first hand
    From word one of dripping snark of your postings, until the very end....Never change bubba.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #92
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 02:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The good news is that the memo at least restricts murdering American citizens to outside the United States. The bad news is that any "high level government official" can theoretically justify such an attack. Hopefully agricultural under-secretaries don't let the power get to their heads and go on a murder spree.

    I just hope that someone in our political establishment stands up to this absurdity. The power to kill without oversight is the tool of tyrants and even the most partisan idiot should understand that sooner or later some guy you don't agree with will be sitting in the oval office with a flock of drones at his command.
    What I find the most interesting part of this debate is how deeply it's shaped by politics. I can almost guarantee if we had a republican in the white house, the majority (not everyone)of posters here would be giving the exact opposite argument on such a drone program

    It's sad how partisan we have become

  3. #93
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    40,993

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    all of it squandered


    war crimes - especially torture - that many of us who were not from the reich wing, wanted brought to international justice. that free pass by Obama was his first major disappointing decision (of many to follow)

    yep, invading the wrong country. fabricating a basis to invade. insisting the VP's former firm (which was still paying him) was the only candidate to perform as a contractor - and then given a no-bid, sole source contract used to defraud the government


    all it was was: torture. which was against international law and treaties we signed


    an American who is also on the side of our nation's enemy is our nation's military enemy. someone we can take out like any other enemy soldier. that's all the memo was about
    you want to make it into something more because it is something Obama appropriated; therefor, to you and your cohort, you must be opposed to it. the same folks who were totally in dicknbush's corner when it came to torture. save your sanctimonious bull ****


    if they survived the battlefield they were either POWs or enemy conspirators entitled to trial. i take it you would have preferred them as POWs ... to be held until the 'war on terror' was officially ended. tell us when that will be


    only once they are captured and off the battle field. then they get the rights of anyone who goes to court. but you would prefer to wipe your ass with the Constitution


    please point out the hypocrisy, as you and your ilk know it first hand
    This thread is not about George Bush. George Bush is not the president. Obama is doing some mighty screwed up things, and pointing your finger at George Bush isn't going to make those bad things that Obama is doing go away. In the past, I have seen you jump all over people for deflecting the issue when the issue was George Bush. Now you are just like those you were jumping on.

    Why am I bashing Obama? For the same reason I bashed George Bush. Because Obama is clearly in the wrong here. Yes, I was the biggest Bush basher in this forum when he was in office, and now I am the biggest Obama basher. To me, party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. And it is Obama's wrongdoing that is now the issue. Bush is gone, and now it's Obama who is trashing the Constitution. Bringing up the past does not make the present right, if the present is clearly wrong. And, yea, I CAN bash Obama if I want to. I have no axe to grind. I was not quiet when Bush was in office. I bashed the crap out of Bush when he was shredding the Constitution, so I have earned the right to bash Obama for doing the same. Party and lean have absolutely nothing to do with it. Pointing out the wrongdoing by ANY president, no matter which party, has EVERYTHING to do with it!! Obama should be impeached for crap like this, which violates the oath of office he took when he was sworn in.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    That is not what is says, but if you read in the way you post excerpts (skipping 3/4ths of the writing) I'm not surprised you have come to that conclusion.

    The last paragraph on page 7 (which becomes the first on page 8) describes the reasoning why a broader concept of "imminence" is required (e.g. because requiring specific evidence of an imminent attack would dramatically reduce the window in which the government can act, increase the likelihood of civilian casualties, and decrease the likelihood that we would be able to head off an attack).

    The next paragraph, the second on page 8 and the one quoted in my previous post, is the only situation in the entire memo in which the writer counsels that the "imminence" requirement would be met. There is nothing in the memo that says anyone who has ever been involved in al-Qa'ida, or anyone speaking out about the government, can be killed. Nor is there anything that could in any way rationally be extended to permit such a thing. That appears to be your fear and distrust talking.

    Source? To my knowledge, DHS defines "terrorism" as:

    "Any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

    Talking bad about the government doesn't fall into that category. Moreover, this memo doesn't say it adopts the DHS definition, nor does it authorize drone strikes on "terrorists" generally -- only on al-Qa'ida and "associated groups." The latter term could be fleshed out some more, I agree. But again, this is not a law. It does not have to be precise to withstand constitutional scrutiny. It's not even subject to constitutional scrutiny -- only executive actions are. And you can bet Obama is not going to order a drone strike on any American not belonging to al-Qa'ida or the most closely associated of groups. Especially in this partisan climate.

    Pages 10 and 11, at least in my copy, talk about Section 1119(b), not due process.

    I can't really say whether that is true, but it is certainly not authorized or recommended by this memo.

    Care to try again?

    “This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

    In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.

    U were saying, now? Just how does the ACLU come up with a complete and entirely thought on it based on Law as you do?

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,” said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

    In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

    In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

    “The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,” he said.

    The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

    It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.....snip~

    So says Holder and Obama. What do you think about arguments that carry no statute or court decisions that justifies it conclusions? Myself, I don't think winging it and arguing that the President doesn't have to explain himself while not addressing the issue of ANY Official that can make the call. Explains anything but to show the deflection Holder comes with.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,363
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post

    war crimes - especially torture - that many of us who were not from the reich wing, wanted brought to international justice. that free pass by Obama was his first major disappointing decision (of many to follow)
    You can't openly support the killing of Americans by the government without due process, a clear violation of the constitution, and at the same time call those who disagree with you "reich wing". This is probably the single most hypocritical statement I have ever read on this site... and that's saying something.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Congress considers putting limits on drone strikes.....

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.

    The White House on Tuesday defended its lethal drone program by citing the very laws that some in Congress once believed were appropriate in the years immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks but now think may be too broad.

    It has to be in the agenda of this Congress to reconsider the scope of action of drones and use of deadly force by the United States around the world because the original authorization of use of force, I think, is being strained to its limits," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a recent interview.

    Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday that "it deserves a serious look at how we make the decisions in government to take out, kill, eliminate, whatever word you want to use, not just American citizens but other citizens as well."

    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee likely will hold hearings on U.S. drone policy, an aide said Tuesday, and Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, both have quietly expressed concerns about the deadly operations. And earlier this week, a group of 11 Democratic and Republican senators urged President Barack Obama to release a classified Justice Department legal opinion justifying when U.S. counterterror missions, including drone strikes, can be used to kill American citizens abroad.

    Without those documents, it's impossible for Congress and the public to decide "whether this authority has been properly defined, and whether the president's power to deliberately kill Americans is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards," the senators wrote.

    It was a repeated request after receiving last June an unclassified Justice Department memo, which fell short of giving the senators all the information they requested.....snip~

    Congress considers putting limits on drone strikes - Yahoo! News
    Associated Press – 1 hr 16 mins ago<<<<< More here, way more!

    So much for Obama's Transparency.....huh? So how is this Constitutional again? If Knowingly knowing that this is going against and around the Constitution. this needs to be tied into with Obama being Unconstitutional with his Recess appointments too. Specially the part about not releasing those records and memos.

    Looks like even the Democrats cannot accept this from Obama!

  8. #98
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,534

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Obama is Bush on freakin' steroids, and IMHO, is shredding the Constitution even worse than Bush did. This is a situation where Americans of all stripes, whether they are Liberal or Conservative, should be appalled.
    Amen.


    ......but we won't. The desire for liberty has subsided in the American breast, replaced with a longing for government treats. Protect us, oh loving all-father wise government, from ourselves.

    Our Constitution says that you can NOT take life, liberty, or property, without judicial review. Why is that in the Constitution? Because people sometimes get it wrong and, in their zest for "justice" end up going after innocent people occasionally. NO American should EVER be subjected to an automatic death penalty because the government decrees it. ALL Americans deserve their day in court. And if you don't agree with that, then you belong in North Korea, Iran, or some other place that doesn't have a Constitution of the United States of America.

    President Obama - Shame on you, and the horse you rode in on.
    I think we will be able to judge the partisanship v the ideological devotion of many of our left-leaning friends by their reaction to this. Those who defend it because it's "their guy" are no better than the President.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    44,094

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Amen.


    ......but we won't. The desire for liberty has subsided in the American breast, replaced with a longing for government treats. Protect us, oh loving all-father wise government, from ourselves.



    I think we will be able to judge the partisanship v the ideological devotion of many of our left-leaning friends by their reaction to this. Those who defend it because it's "their guy" are no better than the President.
    I don't see how anyone, regardless of their "lean" could possibly support giving the presidency a license to kill.

    (Don't we have at least two other threads on this same subject now?)
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I don't see how anyone, regardless of their "lean" could possibly support giving the presidency a license to kill.

    (Don't we have at least two other threads on this same subject now?)
    I think we might but AM had this up since 5am.....so I didn't get back until later in the evening. Which is why I am hitting it this piece up. Are the others worded in the same with the same piece? If so, maybe we can get them merged.

    I agree with you.....everybody should be concerned.

Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •