Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 315

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

  1. #101
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    So says Holder and Obama[/B][/COLOR]. 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.
    If you had read the document then you would know that at least two Supreme Court decisions were cited. The criteria layed out by the Justice Department are the following:

    1. "Where an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."

    2. "Where a capture operation would be infeasible - and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible."

    3. "Where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."

    In short, if they can't be captured; kill them. I don't see the problem and this principle is exercised every day in routine police action.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    If you had read the document then you would know that at least two Supreme Court decisions were cited. The criteria layed out by the Justice Department are the following:

    1. "Where an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."

    2. "Where a capture operation would be infeasible - and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible."

    3. "Where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles."

    In short, if they can't be captured; kill them. I don't see the problem and this principle is exercised every day in routine police action.
    Thus a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that....[they] are continually plotting attacks..., that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly...; that the U.S government may not be aware of all...plots...and thus cannot be confident that none will occur...

    With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude...that an individual poses an "imminent threat"...[based upon] that member's current involvement....."

    In essence, by nature of being named a member of al-Qa'ida or "associated group" (which is left undefined), you can automatically be assumed to pose an "imminent threat", and no intelligence of a specific threat is necessary......snip~

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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



    This would be relevant with the use of Drones!

  4. #104
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Thus a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that....[they] are continually plotting attacks..., that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly...; that the U.S government may not be aware of all...plots...and thus cannot be confident that none will occur...

    With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude...that an individual poses an "imminent threat"...[based upon] that member's current involvement....."

    In essence, by nature of being named a member of al-Qa'ida or "associated group" (which is left undefined), you can automatically be assumed to pose an "imminent threat", and no intelligence of a specific threat is necessary......snip~
    Nice hatchet job but lets cut to the core of the issue. If you're a moron like Anwar al-Awlaki and post videos, web pages, and send emails on the Internet declaring your own involvement with Al Qaeda and plotting attacks against the United States and you cannot be captured then you will be killed. There is also a strong case to be made that such actions constitute latae sententiae revocation of citizenship under the law.

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Nice hatchet job but lets cut to the core of the issue. If you're a moron like Anwar al-Awlaki and post videos, web pages, and send emails on the Internet declaring your own involvement with Al Qaeda and plotting attacks against the United States and you cannot be captured then you will be killed. There is also a strong case to be made that such actions constitute latae sententiae revocation of citizenship under the law.
    Nah.....I am not a moron. But you can call me what you like you. Just don't call me late for supper. Otherwise it's your azz!

    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~

    Only fools rush in!

  6. #106
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Nah.....I am not a moron. But you can call me what you like you. Just don't call me late for supper. Otherwise it's your azz!
    I'll try to remember that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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.”
    I don't know what document McMahon was reading but the White Paper cites Mullaney v. Wilbur, People v. Frye, United States v. White, Tennessee v. Garner, Scott v. Harris, Mathews v. Eldridge, etc. etc.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    I'll try to remember that.



    I don't know what document McMahon was reading but the White Paper cites Mullaney v. Wilbur, People v. Frye, United States v. White, Tennessee v. Garner, Scott v. Harris, Mathews v. Eldridge, etc. etc.


    I think it was the case she was holding.....as she stated Team Obama presented no statutes or no justified case to argue with. Moreover it is the Democrats that are going after this. Maybe they don't want Drones to be watching what they are doing all based on some alleged threat.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-13 @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    790

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

    Let's call the Obama Administration what it is.

    Fascist.

  9. #109
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    I think it was the case she was holding.....as she stated Team Obama presented no statutes or no justified case to argue with.
    She was presiding over a FOIA case in which the NYT and ACLU were suing to get their hands on the documents. She never saw them either so she wouldn't know what the Obama Administration's internal legal arguments for the practice were/are. The purpose of the lawsuit was not to decide the legality of such actions anyway; merely to collect information.


    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    [COLOR="#800000"]Maybe they don't want Drones to be watching what they are doing all based on some alleged threat.
    I don't live in a paranoid Orwellian fantasyland. I'm a Democrat, and I don't care if some pencil pusher in the CIA knows what I ate for lunch today. If taking video footage of me eating chicken nuggets makes someone feel safer then so be it.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-06-13 at 01:29 AM.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    She was presiding over a FOIA case in which the NYT and ACLU were suing to get their hands on the documents. She never saw them either so she wouldn't know what the Obama Administration's internal legal arguments for the practice were/are. The purpose of the lawsuit was not to decide the legality of such actions anyway; merely to collect information.

    I don't live in a paranoid Orwellian fantasyland. I'm a Democrat, and I don't care if some pencil pusher in the CIA knows what I ate for lunch today. If taking video footage of me eating chicken nuggets makes someone feel safer then so be it.


    "Ah".....yeah I have family that are Democrats, moreos on the Irish side. Course the Sicilian side tends to lean more to the Right. But hey, we can be very social.

    They did have to file the Petition.....which would be citing statutes and case within their arguments. Yet they know now from the memo. Hence her response and the Demos jumping over it.

    Well why you may not care.....there are many others that do. As some can see other issues that are correlated to this one. Such as NDAA.

Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •