Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 315

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

  1. #161
    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 is what they got from Brennan.....

    In a 2012 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, Brennan asserted that the drone strikes are legal both under the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks and because, "There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."......snip~



    Washington (CNN) -- The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning will receive a classified document that seeks to justify the administration's policy of targeting Americans overseas via drone attacks, chairwoman Dianne Feinstein said late Wednesday.


    The announcement came shortly after an administration official said that President Barack Obama had yielded to demands that he turn over to Congress the classified Justice Department legal advice that seeks to justify the policy.

    The developments came the night before confirmation hearings are to be held for Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan, and amid complaints from senators, including several Democrats, about secrecy surrounding the drone policy.

    This does not appear to be the view of Ben Emmerson, United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, who announced plans in October to investigate U.S. drone attacks and the extent to which they cause civilian casualties.

    The drone campaign against al Qaeda and its allies has been one of Brennan's biggest legacies in the four years he was the president's principal adviser on terrorism.....snip~

    Obama to give white paper on targeted killings to Congress - CNN.com

  2. #162
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mr4anarchy View Post
    The MEMO is talking about American citizens no longer living in the states who have joined up with al-Quaida or similar and are considered a "senior operational leaders".

    1. It's a MEMO making the case for a policy.

    2. If you leave the U.S. and join up with al-Quaida and become a "senior operational leader", then you are an enemy of the United States.

    3. I have a hard time believing any Congressman or Senator who support rendition, enhanced interrogation, or any number of Patriot Act policies would have a problem with killing an terrorist enemy of the United States before they can plan an attack.

    If you're in war and you suddenly change sides and begin working with the enemy, do you have the right to scream "but I'm an American" as your former squad guns you down?

    Your comments seem like the typical anti-Obama nonsense that has become too common in the last 4 years. You don't even respect the right of your country to protect you from an enemy (that happens to hold a U.S. Passport).

    Re: your continental U.S. hypothetical. Think about it, if a senior operational leader of al-Quaida is in the U.S., he better be here standing trial or giving up intel. If you've completely given yourself over to religious extremism and the U.S. is your sworn enemy, then your 'citizenship' is a moot point.
    You forgot the word 'allegedgly'. The govt cant simply decide an american is a traitor without due process. This is exactly why the bill of rights was written, to prevent this exact thing, the govt deciding you are an enemy, without a trial, evidence, a judge, without even asking you.

  3. #163
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,855
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Imnukingfutz View Post
    Not confirmation bias at all, but no proof beyond a reasonable doubt decided by a court, no trial, no chance to defend himself against his accusers, just a death sentence. Thats not enough for me, sorry.
    But again, you are assuming he was a target. Only intentional acts of the government can violate due process. Negligent acts do not. That is not my opinion, that is the legal rule. So if this 16-year-old was not a target (and you have no proof that he was other than the fact that he was hit by a drone...which is definitely not sufficient), then there was no violation of due process here. Negligence, maybe. But it's difficult to say there was even negligence without knowing what info the government had at the time.

    That being said, I am completely against the self-permitting & self-justification of killing Americans abroad just on the word of the Administration, without due process and in complete disregard of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Until they actually do something that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, as in our laws where death is the punishment, I can not condone killing American citizens.
    Due process doesn't always require a trial. It requires only that degree of process which is due under all the circumstances. I think you would regret your opinion if another 9-11 happened and a thousand people died despite the fact that the government had the opportunity to take out the attacker several months before, but didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt so could not act.

    Whether you condone the government to act upon its own evidence and be held accountable later for mistakes, or force the government to wait until a jury has decided the matter, there will be unfortunate consequences. The difference is those consequences might be a terrorist attack where thousands of innocent people die versus a misplaced drone strike where the wrong person is killed. I think one of those side-effects is more condone-able than the other, but that is just my opinion.

    Killing them while on the field of battle while engaged in battle...fine. At that point they have physically picked up arms against this country and they get what they get, but to be put on a kill list even when they havent done anything other than express their rights of freedom of speech at that point?
    Again, there is nothing in the memo that authorizes putting someone on a kill list because they expressed their freedom and speech. And you have no credible evidence to suggest that has ever occurred.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  4. #164
    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

    Foreign complicity in the drone war .....

    The UK government's support for the CIA's drone campaign raises questions about the breadth of foreign involvement.

    On March 17, 2011 a US drone fired several missiles at the Pakistani town of Datta Khel in an attack which killed an estimated 42 people and wounded at least a dozen more. The strike hit a council of tribal elders and local businessmen who had come to discuss a dispute over a nearby chromite mine - a meeting about which they had given prior documented notice to local government officials. Around 10:45AM several missiles struck the two circles of people seated for the commencement of the meeting, sending shrapnel and shards of rock tearing into the crowd. Idris Farid, one of the first responders to the scene, described the aftermath: “Everything was devastated. There were pieces - body pieces - lying around. There was lots of flesh and blood.”

    Complicity in strikes.

    Inside Story Americas
    Are US drones terrorising civilians.

    Contravening law.

    For Noor Khan and others who have lost family members in drone attacks the question of culpability colours perceptions of countries which they had scarcely heard of before their lives were altered by them forever. In the words of one relative of a victim describing life before drone strikes ravaged his hometown, “We did not know that America existed. We did not know what its geographical location was, how its government operated, what its government was like, we don't know how they treat their citizens or anything about them. We didn't know how they treated a common man. Now we know how they treat a common man, what they're doing to us.”

    Given the depth of complicity of governments in the UK and potentially other countries as well, it bears reflection as to how broadly the moral and legally culpability for these attacks truly lies.....snip~

    Foreign complicity in the drone war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

    Which the UN is proceeding with their Investigations into the Drone attacks against other civilians caught up into the mix. All this to top off with the issue of going after Americans overseas and or any vague issues over Americans on US soil.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    But again, you are assuming he was a target. Only intentional acts of the government can violate due process. Negligent acts do not. That is not my opinion, that is the legal rule. So if this 16-year-old was not a target (and you have no proof that he was other than the fact that he was hit by a drone...which is definitely not sufficient), then there was no violation of due process here. Negligence, maybe. But it's difficult to say there was even negligence without knowing what info the government had at the time.

    Due process doesn't always require a trial. It requires only that degree of process which is due under all the circumstances. I think you would regret your opinion if another 9-11 happened and a thousand people died despite the fact that the government had the opportunity to take out the attacker several months before, but didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt so could not act.

    Whether you condone the government to act upon its own evidence and be held accountable later for mistakes, or force the government to wait until a jury has decided the matter, there will be unfortunate consequences. The difference is those consequences might be a terrorist attack where thousands of innocent people die versus a misplaced drone strike where the wrong person is killed. I think one of those side-effects is more condone-able than the other, but that is just my opinion.

    Again, there is nothing in the memo that authorizes putting someone on a kill list because they expressed their freedom and speech. And you have no credible evidence to suggest that has ever occurred.
    So, if the cops accidentally shoot someone, than that's not a violation of their rights.
    Moreover, trial by jury is no longer needed, despite the Bill of rights.

    OK, then, let's continue the drone strikes. Perhaps we could expand them to include the USA, and maybe wipe out some of our gangs and drug dealers, what do you say?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #166
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    But again, you are assuming he was a target. Only intentional acts of the government can violate due process. Negligent acts do not. That is not my opinion, that is the legal rule. So if this 16-year-old was not a target (and you have no proof that he was other than the fact that he was hit by a drone...which is definitely not sufficient), then there was no violation of due process here. Negligence, maybe. But it's difficult to say there was even negligence without knowing what info the government had at the time.
    Its easy to make the claim he wasnt the target to cover their asses or to say they didnt know he was there at that time, they certainly knew the supposed target WAS there at that specific time. So either they didnt care who they killed, which is callous and careless or they did know and just didnt care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Due process doesn't always require a trial. It requires only that degree of process which is due under all the circumstances. I think you would regret your opinion if another 9-11 happened and a thousand people died despite the fact that the government had the opportunity to take out the attacker several months before, but didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt so could not act.
    Due process doesnt include trial? Not so says the Constitution.

    American citizens are GUARANTEED to be informed of the charges against them, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to address their accusers, American citizens are GUARANTEED a trial by a jury of their peers, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to appeal the decision of the courts...none of that can take place when the government arbitrarily decides to kill you upon their say so alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Whether you condone the government to act upon its own evidence and be held accountable later for mistakes, or force the government to wait until a jury has decided the matter, there will be unfortunate consequences. The difference is those consequences might be a terrorist attack where thousands of innocent people die versus a misplaced drone strike where the wrong person is killed. I think one of those side-effects is more condone-able than the other, but that is just my opinion.
    To use the words of President Obama himself....if it saves just one life dont we have the obligation to act?

    You can sit there and rightly justify the killings of Americans without any trial just on the say so of the Administration?
    You can sit there and rightly justify violating someones Constitutional rights just on the say so of the Administration?
    You can sit there and justify our government killing people on perceived assumptions?

    You can not kill a person before they act upon something illicit. By doing so, you are convicting them to death solely upon what they say.
    The very second they act upon what they say, then you have every right to defend yourself and others by killing that person. Until then all that it is is lip service.

    A good analogy would be;
    A person walks up to you on the street and says "Dave and his buddies are going to blow up your house" and you go over to Dave shoot him dead right there.

    Is that right of you to do? Of course not, but that is exactly what our government just justified itself for doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Again, there is nothing in the memo that authorizes putting someone on a kill list because they expressed their freedom and speech. And you have no credible evidence to suggest that has ever occurred.
    Until that person ACTS upon what he says that is exactly what they are doing....killing people who exercise their rights of speech. Until they act upon what they say, they have done nothing wrong. You can talk all you want but the government has no right to penalize you for your words, only your actions.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Imnukingfutz View Post
    Its easy to make the claim he wasnt the target to cover their asses or to say they didnt know he was there at that time, they certainly knew the supposed target WAS there at that specific time. So either they didnt care who they killed, which is callous and careless or they did know and just didnt care.



    Due process doesnt include trial? Not so says the Constitution.

    American citizens are GUARANTEED to be informed of the charges against them, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to address their accusers, American citizens are GUARANTEED a trial by a jury of their peers, American citizens are GUARANTEED the right to appeal the decision of the courts...none of that can take place when the government arbitrarily decides to kill you upon their say so alone.



    To use the words of President Obama himself....if it saves just one life dont we have the obligation to act?

    You can sit there and rightly justify the killings of Americans without any trial just on the say so of the Administration?
    You can sit there and rightly justify violating someones Constitutional rights just on the say so of the Administration?
    You can sit there and justify our government killing people on perceived assumptions?

    You can not kill a person before they act upon something illicit. By doing so, you are convicting them to death solely upon what they say.
    The very second they act upon what they say, then you have every right to defend yourself and others by killing that person. Until then all that it is is lip service.

    A good analogy would be;
    A person walks up to you on the street and says "Dave and his buddies are going to blow up your house" and you go over to Dave shoot him dead right there.

    Is that right of you to do? Of course not, but that is exactly what our government just justified itself for doing.



    Until that person ACTS upon what he says that is exactly what they are doing....killing people who exercise their rights of speech. Until they act upon what they say, they have done nothing wrong. You can talk all you want but the government has no right to penalize you for your words, only your actions.
    To be fair, what about conspiracy to commit a crime? Granted the penalty for that should not be death.

  8. #168
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,855
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    So, if the cops accidentally shoot someone, than that's not a violation of their rights.
    Not their due process rights, no. They might be civilly/criminally liable for other reasons, though, and the police department might have been negligent in hiring or failing to train/supervise the person.

    Moreover, trial by jury is no longer needed, despite the Bill of rights.
    Um, didn't say that. Pretty sure I said it depends on the circumstances. We are talking about a very specific set of circumstances here. If you want to generalize wildly and come up with sweeping rules to cover every possible situation (but are the most appropriate for none) that's your prerogative, but I have no interest in that.

    OK, then, let's continue the drone strikes. Perhaps we could expand them to include the USA, and maybe wipe out some of our gangs and drug dealers, what do you say?
    How about we both strawman until we are to the point of sending drones to kill the cute kitten next door because it's making your daughter jealous of the neighbor? What do you say?
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  9. #169
    Sage
    mak2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    07-08-16 @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

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

    This is just senior AlQuida leaders. That is all. I think by being a senior AlQueda leader, wether you are citizen or not, you are a threat to this nations citizens and interest. The more I think about this one, the more I think it is a good idea. Senior leaders of an organization that has killed many and intends to kill more should be fair game. Fire away drones.
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  10. #170
    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 mak2 View Post
    This is just senior AlQuida leaders. That is all. I think by being a senior AlQueda leader, wether you are citizen or not, you are a threat to this nations citizens and interest. The more I think about this one, the more I think it is a good idea. Senior leaders of an organization that has killed many and intends to kill more should be fair game. Fire away drones.
    Well they have shown other civilians getting killed so it's not just about AQ leaders. Also the Kid in Yemen was 16 and a Citizen of the US. Where there are no ties other than his father being tied to AQ.

    So should the son be killed for what the father does? What about the kid trying to find out about his father and asking questions and talking about AQ. Is that good enough grounds to say he is a threat and to order the kill?

Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •