• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Mr. Moderator, what on earth does that mean?

It means that I took another thread made on the topic, and merged the posts from that thread into this one, so instead of two threads on the topic, there is now one, but with all the posts of the two threads intact.

Moderator's Warning:
If you have questions about moderator actions, please PM a mod, use the contact us button, use the report post button on the post with the moderator action, and of those will work. Do not discuss it inthread please as it derails the thread.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

The conservative response in the Bush era was "If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

I dont think that was the response from the majority of Americans....the Hannityites sure, but not the majority of Americans.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

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.

But none of that is for the Administration to decide and without evidence to back it up. Just look at the 16 year old they killed with a drone strike who had no known associations with any terrorist groups.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

But none of that is for the Administration to decide and without evidence to back it up. Just look at the 16 year old they killed with a drone strike who had no known associations with any terrorist groups.

Correct. Are we going to support executions by government decree? Do we really want to trust the government to decide who lives or dies?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

It doesn't matter whether we trust the government to do so, or NOT.

The government has claimed that power as its own. It has usurped the power, and all the talking heads have utterly embraced that usurpation.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

It says nothing of the sort, in fact it says that intelligence is not needed;
The quote you used to support this is from the article, not the memo, and it is at the very least misleading. Again, the memo only authorizes strikes against senior officials known to be continually involved in planning attacks.

There is far too much selective reading going on in this thread. Confirmation bias, much?

Such is the case with Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16 year old born in Denver whose father was killed by drone strike on Sept 30, 2011....Abdulrahman who had no known ties to any organization was killed in a drone strike on Oct 14, 2011 while eating at an outside cafe.
The government claims that Abdulrahman was never a target, the drone was aimed for Ibrahim al-Banna, and Abdulrahman happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that is true (and I am not so quick as many here to assume that anything the government says must be a lie, because Democrats like Obama obviously just want to kill American teenagers), their error was in assessing the proper moment to strike, not in deciding who to target. And notably, arguably innocent people died in the more traditional assault on Osama bin Laden a few years ago. Banning drone attacks is not going to end that unfortunate side effect of war.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Obama orders secret drone memos shared with Congress.....

President Barack Obama, moving to defuse a battle with Congress, directed the Justice Department on Wednesday to share with key congressional committees secret memos laying out the legal justification for targeted drone-strike assassinations overseas, an aide said.

Obama’s decision came as his pick to head the CIA, White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, faced a grilling on the issue Thursday at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Today, as part of the president's ongoing commitment to consult with Congress on national security matters, the president directed the Department of Justice to provide the congressional Intelligence committees access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice related to the subject" of drone strikes, an administration official said in an emailed statement to reporters. The official requested anonymity to detail behind-the-scenes cooperation between the White House and Congress on a sensitive issue.....snip~

Obama orders secret drone memos shared with Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
The Ticket – 57 mins ago Feb 6 2013<<<<<More here.

Looks like Obama caved after his meeting with Senate Demos today.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Cmon now the kid was sitting outside a restaurant, eating, in Yemen.....then a Drone Strike took him out. Can't say it was an accident.

You also can't say that having lunch with a group of Al Qaeda operatives was an accident either.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

You also can't say that having lunch with a group of Al Qaeda operatives was an accident either.

Is there something to say there was AQ operatives there. As the report stated he was alone eating when killed.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

The quote you used to support this is from the article, not the memo, and it is at the very least misleading. Again, the memo only authorizes strikes against senior officials known to be continually involved in planning attacks.

There is far too much selective reading going on in this thread. Confirmation bias, much?

The government claims that Abdulrahman was never a target, the drone was aimed for Ibrahim al-Banna, and Abdulrahman happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that is true (and I am not so quick as many here to assume that anything the government says must be a lie, because Democrats like Obama obviously just want to kill American teenagers), their error was in assessing the proper moment to strike, not in deciding who to target. And notably, arguably innocent people died in the more traditional assault on Osama bin Laden a few years ago. Banning drone attacks is not going to end that unfortunate side effect of war.

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.

I am all for the use of Drones. I do NOT have a single issue with the use of Drones, in fact I think Drones are probably one of the best ways to get the job done with the least amount of American casualties.

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.

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?

The child was collateral damage, nice excuse for killing an American citizen...a child at that....and then have Carney blame the father for it in a press conference?

Both Bush and Obama have done so much to erode and ignore the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution its pathetic. Bush started the ball rolling and Obama put it on steroids.
 
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~

120928065558-01-drones-dod-story-top.jpg


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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.

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

I was just going to throw this up. Good Catch AM!
highfive.gif
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:

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?



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:
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?


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

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom