Page 22 of 32 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 315

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

  1. #211
    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 justabubba View Post
    that's good information
    it tells us (at least as good as anonymous sources can be relied upon) that he was a collateral casualty and not the intended drone target
    Yeah.....Other than the new stories reporting on it. Theres not much. Other than the Conflicting statements by officials not named. Nor even later who was the one to say he was of age.

  2. #212
    Sage

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    I spent a year in combat with the First Infantry Division, but I don't believe that experience taught me as much about the Constitution as you apparently believe you gained. What it did teach me was the necessity for immediate overwhelming deadly force in response to obvious danger and evil. You are very sadly mistaken if you believe your place is to defend the right to destroy the civilization of the United States until you can personally chauffeur them into court in your private limousine.
    No need for a limo. I would be happy with simply presenting evidence to a court and convicting them of treason, then dropping a bomb on them.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,471

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    And once again I ask: Just because an "enemy combatant," is an American citizen means that their rights go out the window? I have posted evidence of how legally speaking, Anwar al-Awlaki was still a US citizen at the time he was killed.
    The Patriot Act defines a terrorist....

    "....The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

    [edit] US National Counterterrorism CenterThe US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) define terrorism the same as United States Code 22 USC 2656f(d)(2). The Center also defines a terrorist act as a: "...premeditated; perpetrated by a sub-national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." [57]
    Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Civil Liberties Online


    Have you read about Anwar al-Awlaki? He wasn't just your average run of the mill terrorist.....


    "...U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001-2002), which had 3,000 members, al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.[20] In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008-2009 before the Fort Hood shootings.[21][22] During the period of Al-Alwaki's later radical period after 2006-2007, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.[23][24][25] Al-Alwaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

    The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[26][27] U.S. officials alleged that in 2009, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31]...<snip>

    Al-Aulaqi's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, the jihadist killer in the 2009 Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, and the 2010 Times Square bomber. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Aulaqi's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.[20][46][50][131]

    Al-Aulaqi's recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.[96] Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Aulaqi and quoted him on his Myspace page.[132] In addition to his website, al-Aulaqi had a Facebook fan page[133] with a substantial percentage of "fans" from the U.S., many of whom were high school students.[8]....[ie: Paul Rockwood (2008), Charles Allen (2010) Mohamed Alessa and Carlos Almonte (2010), Zachary Chesser]....read....
    Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Given the fact that so many young men of high school age both in the US and abroad were influenced by al-Aulaqi to commit acts of terrorism, it would be very difficult to believe that al-Awaki's sixteen year old son wasn't influenced by his father as well and that he wasn't actively involved with Al Qaeda.
    Last edited by Moot; 02-07-13 at 06:50 PM.

  4. #214
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:06 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 Moot View Post
    The Patriot Act defines a terrorist....

    Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Civil Liberties Online


    Have you read about Anwar al-Awlaki? He wasn't just your average run of the mill terrorist.....


    Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Given the fact that so many young men of high school age both in the US and abroad were influenced by al-Aulaqi to commit acts of terrorism, it would be very difficult to believe that al-Awaki's sixteen year old son wasn't influenced by his father as well and that he wasn't actively involved with Al Qaeda.
    Your quotes have two major flaws. Your first quote defines domestic terrorism, which is much different than regular terrorism. Your other quote with the bolded states what the Yemeni government did to al-Awlaki. It has nothing to do with how the US government violated US law by assassinating a US citizen.

    In regards to al-Awlaki's son, there was no evidence presented that he was a terrorist. Thus, his right to due process was violated. You can't assassinate someone on assumptions.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  5. #215
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    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.
    You don't see the problem? I do. I do not trust the government to make the decision on whether citizens live or die. We fought a war against King George to stop crap like this from happening. But maybe you are right. Maybe all the crap Bush was doing, like spying on American citizens without a warrant, and torturing people was OK, because the government said they had a reason to do so...... But wait. You liberals bashed the crap out of Bush for doing those things. You liberals especially bashed Bush for spying, and nobody got killed because they got spied on. So why isn't what Bush was doing OK with you, but it's OK for Obama to kill Americans without due process? Is the Constitution OK to judge Bush with, but wrong for judging the actions of Obama?

    Here's the deal, summed up in one phrase..... The Constitution of the United States of America.... It trumps Bush, and yes, it sure the hell trumps Obama too.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #216
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Someone just leaked Obama's rules for assassinating U.S. Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Let me be the first to welcome you to the new site Wayknow - hope you like it here as much as I do - have fun!
    We have the lone Canadian Conservative. This is quite noteworthy.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #217
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You don't see the problem? I do. I do not trust the government to make the decision on whether citizens live or die. We fought a war against King George to stop crap like this from happening. But maybe you are right. Maybe all the crap Bush was doing, like spying on American citizens without a warrant, and torturing people was OK, because the government said they had a reason to do so...... But wait. You liberals bashed the crap out of Bush for doing those things. You liberals especially bashed Bush for spying, and nobody got killed because they got spied on. So why isn't what Bush was doing OK with you, but it's OK for Obama to kill Americans without due process? Is the Constitution OK to judge Bush with, but wrong for judging the actions of Obama?

    Here's the deal, summed up in one phrase..... The Constitution of the United States of America.... It trumps Bush, and yes, it sure the hell trumps Obama too.
    Obama could shoot Michelle on public TV and liberals would reelect him. Obama can do no wrong. They are absolutely drunk on this guy.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #218
    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 jonny5 View Post
    To be fair, what about conspiracy to commit a crime? Granted the penalty for that should not be death.
    Conspiracy to commit a crime is such a bogus charge it isnt funny. Its governments way of punishing your thoughts and speech. You should only be punished for your actions not what you think or say.
    You can plot and plan to rob that bank 16 ways from Sunday but until you act upon it you havent done anything wrong...at least to a normal thinking person.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  9. #219
    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
    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.They supposedly knew that their target was in that exact place at that exact moment, so how could they NOT know that the other people were there too? Including innocents...so either they didnt care who they killed, which is callous or they accepted that killing innocent children was acceptable.

    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?
    uh, yea. Thats what we have the Bill of Rights for. To guarantee us against government tyrany. The policeman can shoot him and not kill him, if the gunman turns his weapon on the officer then the officer would be defending himself. If the guy happens to die in the process, then that is fate. It all depends on the intent of the action....ordering someones death and carrying it out without evidence or trial is wrong, someone being killed WHILE IN THE ACT is a completely different situation....you need to learn the difference.

    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...Never said they took the decision lightly, but to make the decision at all is wrong. No one gave that power to the Executive branch to decide who lives and who dies upon their say so.

    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. yes he does. He asked for his administration for a memo to legally justify his actions.

    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.You are right, they can now just kill you for your thought and speech...isnt that great

    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.It is the EXACT same thing...absolutely no difference....replace "Dave" with "government informant" and replace "you" with "government"

    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. Your analogy sucks because "Dave" is NOT wanted by government yet, "Dave" is some guy who has done nothing wrong other than exercise his freedom of speech.

    What do you do?Wait until they act upon their plan...at that point they did something wrong, at that point they went beyond talking about it and began to implement their plan.
    You need to open your eyes and stop defending whatever "your guy" does blindly.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  10. #220
    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

    Brennan defends drone strikes, even on Americans



    WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA Director-designate John Brennan strongly defended anti-terror attacks by unmanned drones Thursday under close questioning at a protest-disrupted confirmation hearing. On a second controversial topic, he said that after reading a classified intelligence report on harsh interrogation techniques, he does not know if waterboarding has yielded useful information.

    Despite what he called a public misimpression, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee that drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one. "Nothing could be further from the truth," he declared.

    Brennan bristled once during the day, when Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, accused him of having leaked classified information in a telephone call with former government officials who were preparing to make television appearances.

    "I disagree with that vehemently," the nominee shot back.

    Brennan made repeated general pledges to increase the flow of information to members of the Senate panel, but he was less specific when it came to individual cases. Asked at one point whether he would provide a list of countries where the CIA has used lethal authority, he replied, "It would be my intention to do everything possible" to comply.

    In the hours before the hearing began, Obama ordered that a classified paper outlining the legal rationale for striking at U.S. citizens abroad be made available for members of the House and Senate intelligence panels to read.

    It was an attempt to clear the way for Brennan's approval, given hints from some lawmakers that they might hold up confirmation unless they had access to the material.

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he was encouraged when Obama called him on the telephone to inform him of his decision. But he said that when he went to read the material he became concerned the Department of Justice "is not following through" on the presidential commitment. Prodded to look into the matter, Brennan said he would.

    Fewer than 50 strikes took place during the Bush administration, while more than 360 strikes have been launched under Obama, according to the website The Long War Journal, which tracks the operations.....snip~

    Brennan defends drone strikes, even on Americans - Yahoo! News

    It would appear that Obama did not send all that Wyden and the Democrats were looking for. Brennan keeps focusing on the issue of retribution. Yet says nothing about targeting Americans in any essence. So much for that Obama transparency.....huh?

Page 22 of 32 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •