Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 315

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

  1. #171
    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

    There is coolateral damage in every war, funny how it just bothers the right when Obama does it. The US is amazingly good at surgical stikes and spends lots of money getting better at them every year the kid getting killed was unfortunate. If his dad was really a Senior AQ leader, maybe it saved more kids lives that Dad wont get to kill someday. BTW, I really dont know about this, so I am just throwing it out there. In many countries 16 year olds are prime military age. Do you think the kid was an active duty alquida?
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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?
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  2. #172
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    I was just going to throw this up. Good Catch AM! This along with NDAA is serious. This would mean that Obama or any after him could target Americans in the US, with Drones.

    Here was the wording.....

    It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

    The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

    Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

    As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.....snip~

    On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, “It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”.....snip~

    Even the Democrats are questioning this. Out of the 11..... 8 are Demos. They want Answers from Obama.....NOW!
    BBC picked this up as well.
    Well, a precedent was set for the bolded part when Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki who, legally speaking, was still a US citizen at the time of his death. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)

    Really, I think that one of the main causes of this is due to partisanship where things are OK if your guy does it, but horrible if the other guy does the same.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    if someone is involved with the enemy of my nation - regardless of their place of birth - they have become an enemy target
    whether by drone or other military weapon

    surprised so many of the reich wing are opposed to our military's eradicating enemy forces
    And yet you ignore the questions of

    1. What is the definition (according to the WH) of who an enemy is and what acts it constitutes

    2. Isn't this an attack on the 5th amendment, which allows for due process?

    3. Doesn't this lead us further down the road to a police state?

    4. Doesn't this greatly upset the balance of power between the three branches of government?



    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    And what if the government decides that protesting against it is a threat? This is what I mean, you place way more faith in our government than I do. Personally I don't trust them to make that decision, especially when it comes to Americans.

    Unfortunately people only look at the government as it is NOW, instead of looking at what it can become. As it is the govenrment is a beast and people seem more than happy to keep giving it power.
    The FBI actually considers peaceful protests to be a form of terrorism. (Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of “Terrorist” Occupy Wall Street « naked capitalism) (Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists | Fox News) (ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As)
    Last edited by Mr. Invisible; 02-07-13 at 03:25 PM.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  3. #173
    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
    There is coolateral damage in every war, funny how it just bothers the right when Obama does it. The US is amazingly good at surgical stikes and spends lots of money getting better at them every year the kid getting killed was unfortunate. If his dad was really a Senior AQ leader, maybe it saved more kids lives that Dad wont get to kill someday. BTW, I really dont know about this, so I am just throwing it out there. In many countries 16 year olds are prime military age. Do you think the kid was an active duty alquida?

    According to what we know the kid lived in Denver. He left his grandparents to go looking for him in Yemen. They filed suit against the US Government for killing the kid.

    Also it is a bunch of BS thinking those on the Right would want to extend such a Power to the Presidency. Since when did you think those on the Right abdicate for No Due Process. That government can make up whatever it wants and then act upon it? All based on whether the intel they got is real or not?

    Uhm......do I have to remind any how inept this Administration is over intel and what they say intel is. (yeah that's Right say Benghazi.....REAL LOUD LIKE!)

    Moreover I already put up a piece on sow surgical some of those strikes are and the others that have been killed. Despite not being the target.

  4. #174
    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 Mr. Invisible View Post
    Well, a precedent was set for the bolded part when Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki who, legally speaking, was still a US citizen at the time of his death. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)

    Really, I think that one of the main causes of this is due to partisanship where things are OK if your guy does it, but horrible if the other guy does the same.

    EDIT:



    And yet you ignore the questions of

    1. What is the definition (according to the WH) of who an enemy is and what acts it constitutes

    2. Isn't this an attack on the 5th amendment, which allows for due process?

    3. Doesn't this lead us further down the road to a police state?

    4. Doesn't this greatly upset the balance of power between the three branches of government?





    The FBI actually considers peaceful protests to be a form of terrorism. (Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of “Terrorist” Occupy Wall Street « naked capitalism) (Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists | Fox News) (ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As)
    How so when Holder Admitted that Any Official that was dealing with such an issue can make the call? Seems it is clear Holder pointed to the Fact that it didn't have to be Just the President.

  5. #175
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    How so when Holder Admitted that Any Official that was dealing with such an issue can make the call? Seems it is clear Holder pointed to the Fact that it didn't have to be Just the President.
    What part of my post are you responding to?

    EDIT: And yes, in the memo it states that it doesn't just have to be the President, but can also be a high-ranking intel official.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  6. #176
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    if someone is involved with the enemy of my nation - regardless of their place of birth - they have become an enemy target
    whether by drone or other military weapon
    Who makes this determination?

    It used to be that a judge signed off on any invasions of my privacy, a warrant or probably cause was needed to engage in a search, and we had the right to face our accusors (until speed cameras.)

    I would like to preserve some semblance of a justice system. Thanks to your lot, **** like this and the NDAA have rendered our rights meaningless, so long as a senior administration official says so.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    surprised so many of the reich wing are opposed to our military's eradicating enemy forces
    One must be careful what kind of power is given to the government. All people deserve due process, the right to a fair trial and are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    I'm not surprised at the utter disregard for our rights from the likes of you.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #177
    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 Mr. Invisible View Post
    What part of my post are you responding to?

    EDIT: And yes, in the memo it states that it doesn't just have to be the President, but can also be a high-ranking intel official.
    Yes it does.....while also validating that all there needs to be is a perceived threat. Which leaves way to may Senior Officials from to many Depts with the ability to make that Call.

    If we are to accuse those of being a Traitor to the Country.....there is a way to go about that course of action thru Law. Not one individual deciding anything. Which this applies to our people and not those from other foreign countries.

  8. #178
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    8

    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.
    Well there you go. In your view, it is more likely our current government consciously desires to kill teenagers (or at least doesn't care about killing teenagers) than it is that they didn't have 100% perfect knowledge of what was going on in a foreign country at one specific moment. I think that sums up our current disagreement fairly well. I for one have seen zero evidence whatsoever that would lead me to such a pessimistic assumption.

    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.
    All those things apply to criminal prosecutions. Are you suggesting that we must criminally prosecute all Americans before we deprive them of life or liberty? Surely if an american criminal is pointing a gun at a policeman, you would not say that the person must be criminally prosecuted and given a chance to address his accusers before the policeman is able to shoot him. So where do we draw the line? What about when the American is in a nuclear-armed foreign country hiding in cave somewhere plotting attacks, and we only get intelligence about his exact whereabouts once or twice a year? Do we have to risk the lives of soldiers by ordering them to physically invade said country and capture the guy alive, to bring him to trial? I think you said before you are in favor of drones, so I'm just wondering where exactly you draw the line?


    To use the words of President Obama himself....if it saves just one life dont we have the obligation to act?
    More likely, it saves the life of a terrorist and ends the lives of several terrorist victims.

    Why do you and others think that the government takes these decisions likely and is ordering drone strikes whenever they have any inkling whatsoever that the person is a terrorist? You do realize that half the government is controlled by a party that would love nothing more than to impeach this executive, right? Even if you are right and Obama is totally callous and incompetent, surely he is at least rational enough to want to avoid being sent to jail for murdering innocent people...

    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?
    Oh relax, nobody is justifying anything. I'm just saying Obama doesn't deserve to be raked over the coals for asking for a memo on when drone strikes would be constitutionally legal, or for trying to take out terrorists (even American ones) before they kill innocent people. Give me a break.

    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.
    Thankfully, we have never been forced to wait until a terrorist attack (or any crime) actually occurs to punish those who intend to perpetrate such an act. I agree that speech alone is not a good reason to send a drone on someone (unless they are saying they are about to commit a terrorist attack). But what I have been saying all along, and what you guys persist in repeating despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support you in the memo, is that this document permits killing anyone who disagrees with the government. Calm down and try to see through the blind partisan hatred for a second, please.

    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.
    You guys are terrible at analogies. We are not talking about your next-door neighbor Dave, or hearsay based on some random guy. We are talking about a top US intelligence official putting his name (and likely liberty) on the line to say there is sufficient evidence to believe Dave is a terrorist plotting to kill American citizens. Moreover, the memo requires that capture be infeasible. In your analogy, did you make any attempt to stop Dave by some other fashion (e.g. calling the police)? No. You shot him dead right there. So your analogy fails just based on that.

    I'll give you a better analogy. George Washington comes up to you one day as says Dave and his buddies, a team wanted by the government on suspicion of previous, severe acts of violence against random individuals, but currently at large and by all accounts planning more attacks, is going to blow up your town. You don't know where Dave lives, nobody does. You call the state police and the FBI, but they say you are on their own (either because they are scared to act or have been bribed by Dave and his buddies). Some time later, George Washington comes to you and says that Dave is going to be at a cafe in a neighboring town for about ten minutes on Monday. He doesn't know how close Dave is to perpetrating the attack on your town. Again, you call the police and the FBI, but they again refuse to help you. You have several choices. You could walk into the cafe to talk and possibly be shot by Dave and his buddies, and from there they might decide to continue with the attack, killing your wife and children and all your neighbors and friends. Or they might escape and you might not get another chance to stop them before the attack. You could do nothing, and hope this man suspected of previous violent acts is not actually going to hurt you and your town (though George Washington is a pretty reputable guy...), or that the police and FBI will hold him responsible after you and everyone else you love are dead. Or you could shoot him and risk being thrown in jail for murder, but at least you would have stopped an attack on your home and the potential deaths of hundreds if not thousands of definitely innocent people.

    What do you do?
    Last edited by Cameron; 02-07-13 at 04:04 PM.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  9. #179
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Well, a precedent was set for the bolded part when Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki who, legally speaking, was still a US citizen at the time of his death. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)

    Really, I think that one of the main causes of this is due to partisanship where things are OK if your guy does it, but horrible if the other guy does the same.

    EDIT:



    And yet you ignore the questions of

    1. What is the definition (according to the WH) of who an enemy is and what acts it constitutes
    the legal opinion describes that criteria

    2. Isn't this an attack on the 5th amendment, which allows for due process?
    no. this is a military action. the opinion establishes that, thus eliminating civil/criminal process from being compelled

    3. Doesn't this lead us further down the road to a police state?
    not unless you believe police state = military action. the opinion rendered the conclusion that an enemny remains a viable military target no matter where the individual's place of birth
    that there is such disagreement as is found in this thread evidences the need for such an opinion

    4. Doesn't this greatly upset the balance of power between the three branches of government?
    no. because the opinion establishes this to be a military action. there is no need for judicial involvement because the targeting of the enemy in a military action is not something that is taken up judicially
    the congress still is responsible for any declaration of war and/or appropriations needed to proceed with any military action, but they have no other investment in the military action which resulted in the targeting of an enemy combatant






    The FBI actually considers peaceful protests to be a form of terrorism. (Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of “Terrorist” Occupy Wall Street « naked capitalism) (Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists | Fox News) (ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As)[/QUOTE]

    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #180
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 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 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.
    How do we know they are senior AQ leaders? Have they been charged and tried? Is there evidence? Did they get due process, representation, a day in court in front of their peers? These are the rights they have as american citizens.

Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •