Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 315

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

  1. #31
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

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

    The language in the memo is kind of ambiguous and opens the door for a LOT of abuse. Dropping the requirement that intelligence showing an immediate or ongoing threat be presented before initializing a drone strike is like saying, "We heard once that you were kind of pissed at your government and encouraged people to rise up...but we've had nothing from you in weeks. Somebody told us you were in Des Moines, so here comes a drone...just in case you're doing something so secretively that one of the best intelligence organizations in the world can't figure it out."

    We've almost ALWAYS had substantial, current intelligence on enemy combatants we've attacked in war zones...intelligence that included information of imminent strikes against us or our interests or confirming involvement in a previous strike. And these people are involved in a declared war against us.

    There is absolutely nothing in the memo that requires a formal declaration of war or assault against the U.S, nothing that requires a recognized act of treason. It fails to define key words in specific language that would safely and effectively limit the number of unjustified attacks against U.S. citizens and it is therefore dangerous and constitutionally unsound. By the language in this memo they could justify the killing of anybody who speaks out against the actions of the government...without charge, trial, or conviction.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  2. #32
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

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

    I wonder: if this policy had been implemented before Manning's arrest, would they have just droned him instead of arresting him?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  3. #33
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    The language in the memo is kind of ambiguous and opens the door for a LOT of abuse. Dropping the requirement that intelligence showing an immediate or ongoing threat be presented before initializing a drone strike is like saying, "We heard once that you were kind of pissed at your government and encouraged people to rise up...but we've had nothing from you in weeks. Somebody told us you were in Des Moines, so here comes a drone...just in case you're doing something so secretively that one of the best intelligence organizations in the world can't figure it out."

    We've almost ALWAYS had substantial, current intelligence on enemy combatants we've attacked in war zones...intelligence that included information of imminent strikes against us or our interests or confirming involvement in a previous strike. And these people are involved in a declared war against us.

    There is absolutely nothing in the memo that requires a formal declaration of war or assault against the U.S, nothing that requires a recognized act of treason. It fails to define key words in specific language that would safely and effectively limit the number of unjustified attacks against U.S. citizens and it is therefore dangerous and constitutionally unsound. By the language in this memo they could justify the killing of anybody who speaks out against the actions of the government...without charge, trial, or conviction.
    This is a usurpation of power by the government, and it is illegal and treasonous.

    Nonetheless, Obama's lawyers will declare it legal, just as Holder has already announced to the complicit media that due process does not mean 'judicial process.'

    Obama governs like Bush on steroids.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

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

    This issue will really ramp up the first time a drone is taken down here at home by civilians. It could be justified as protecting against illegal search but would likely be prosecuted as destruction of government property. The line between the rights of the people and the rights of the government are tipped to house advantage, it should be the other way around. Covering the spread seems like such a small step, why would we have a problem with that?

  5. #35
    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

    He was already under government control. Not the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I wonder: if this policy had been implemented before Manning's arrest, would they have just droned him instead of arresting him?
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  6. #36
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    He was already under government control. Not the same thing.
    I wouldn't say he was "under government control" if he freely and knowingly violated the policies and rules of his position. I would assume he was viewed as a free radical, considering he was arrested.

    The memo states they'll use drones if it would be less risky than a direct confrontation/detainment. What if Manning had been armed, or if they deemed him likely to take hostages or attempt "suicide by cop" if they tried to arrest him? They don't have to do much to justify a drone strike, after all. It would have been easy enough for them to manufacture the justification for using one on him.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  7. #37
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,714

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

    Personally, I dislike it. I figure, if in the course of normal combat operations an American terrorist gets killed, so be it. I wont be shedding any tears. But to deliberately target an American with a missile strike without due process? No, thank you. I don't care if they're standing in the middle of an Al-Qaeda barbecue & swing dance competition. Because what's the real difference between killing an alleged American terrorist in Yemen without due process and killing an alleged American terrorist in Ohio without due process?

    So what happens when someone at the DoD decides one of these right-wing militia groups or an anarchist or a member of Greenpeace is a terrorist? What if I sleep with the wrong guy's wife and he puts the terrorist sticker on my file? Who is checking on that? You know, before a rocket comes through my window, preferably.

    Justice carried out in secret can't possibly be justice.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #38
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Its not your decision to make. Its the justice systems. Sounds like youre a member of the reich wing.
    again, you are wrong
    this is a military operation
    and the opinion a military operation where the enemy combatant was of US birth
    but prove me wrong and show us all how the courts determine which enemy combatants are to be killed
    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

  9. #39
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,841
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    The language in the memo is kind of ambiguous and opens the door for a LOT of abuse. Dropping the requirement that intelligence showing an immediate or ongoing threat be presented before initializing a drone strike is like saying, "We heard once that you were kind of pissed at your government and encouraged people to rise up...but we've had nothing from you in weeks. Somebody told us you were in Des Moines, so here comes a drone...just in case you're doing something so secretively that one of the best intelligence organizations in the world can't figure it out."
    I don't think it says anything like that. The memo says they need to have evidence that the person is a senior-level official engaged in continuing planning of attacks (it specifically says that evidence they were once involved in a one-time attack is not sufficient). And the memo only covers the situation of an American in a foreign country.

    The problem they seek to avoid is the situation where they don't find out about specifics about the New 9-11 until the planes are already in the air, and by then American Osama is in an elementary school in a nuclear-armed foreign country surrounded by children.

    There is absolutely nothing in the memo that requires a formal declaration of war or assault against the U.S, nothing that requires a recognized act of treason.
    It requires that the person have engaged in the planning of a terrorist attack. What is that, if not treason? It also requires that the person be a senior member of al-Qa'ida or an associated organization.

    Anyway, this is not a law, it is a memorandum of law. It doesn't give the government the authority to do anything, it just advises the President what, in the drafter's opinion, would be legal. And since we are dealing with a highly contextual area of law, this memorandum is probably not going to be accurate even five years from now, as circumstances change and the war on terror evolves. So for the moment, under the current circumstances, I don't have a problem with any failure to require declarations of war. We all are well aware that we are at war with al-Qa'ida.

    It fails to define key words in specific language that would safely and effectively limit the number of unjustified attacks against U.S. citizens and it is therefore dangerous and constitutionally unsound. By the language in this memo they could justify the killing of anybody who speaks out against the actions of the government...without charge, trial, or conviction.
    No, they couldn't. There is nothing in this memo that would justify killing anybody who speaks out against the actions of the government. If you had read even the first paragraph you would have to realize that.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  10. #40
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    I don't think it says anything like that. The memo says they need to have evidence that the person is a senior-level official engaged in continuing planning of attacks (it specifically says that evidence they were once involved in a one-time attack is not sufficient). And the memo only covers the situation of an American in a foreign country.

    The problem they seek to avoid is the situation where they don't find out about specifics about the New 9-11 until the planes are already in the air, and by then American Osama is in an elementary school in a nuclear-armed foreign country surrounded by children.

    It requires that the person have engaged in the planning of a terrorist attack. What is that, if not treason? It also requires that the person be a senior member of al-Qa'ida or an associated organization.

    Anyway, this is not a law, it is a memorandum of law. It doesn't give the government the authority to do anything, it just advises the President what, in the drafter's opinion, would be legal. And since we are dealing with a highly contextual area of law, this memorandum is probably not going to be accurate even five years from now, as circumstances change and the war on terror evolves. So for the moment, under the current circumstances, I don't have a problem with any failure to require declarations of war. We all are well aware that we are at war with al-Qa'ida.

    No, they couldn't. There is nothing in this memo that would justify killing anybody who speaks out against the actions of the government. If you had read even the first paragraph you would have to realize that.
    I read the memo...not just the article.....apparently your interpretation of the requirements for authorization is different than mine. Care to show me the text in the memo that you believe says they have to have intelligence of them planning an attack?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •