• 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

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.

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

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.
 
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.
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:
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
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]

 
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.

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

the legal opinion describes that criteria


no. this is a military action. the opinion establishes that, thus eliminating civil/criminal process from being compelled


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


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]

1. So just because it's a military option, my civil liberties go out the window?

2. I just showed that a US citizen was killed via drone by Obama and you are still trying to say that its a military action?

3. Define the term "enemy combatant." That's the exact same language the Bush used.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

Predator-Drone-Libya-e1360256822343.jpg


This is not an open-ended process. This is a specific and unique accommodation in this circumstance. The fact is, when it comes to public disclosure, we have been — not with the kind of attention that’s been given it this week — but we have been publicly discussing these matters at the highest levels of government for the very reason that I’ve given, which is the President understands that these are core issues about how we conduct ourselves in war, how the President of the United States — any President — balances his constitutional obligation to protect America and American citizens, and his obligation to do so in a manner that is lawful under the Constitution and reflects our values.

Read more: White House: No more drone killings information will be released | The Daily Caller


Seems Obama wants only so much Transparency.....huh?
rolleyes.png


obama-forward-drones.jpg
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

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.

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.

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?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I don't see where that says anything about "circumstances."

And what is the difference between taking out suspects in Yemen, and taking them out in East LA the same way? It seems to me a small step.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I don't see where that says anything about "circumstances."
You were talking about due process. If you want to talk about the sixth amendment and criminal prosecutions, I discussed in a previous post why that doesn't apply to this situation, and others have as well.

And what is the difference between taking out suspects in Yemen, and taking them out in East LA the same way? It seems to me a small step.
The humongous difference is that the US has a limited ability and authority to act in Yemen. There are far more options for how to deal with a suspected terrorist living in LA than there are for one living in Yemen. For example, it would be a whole lot easier to bring somebody in for trial if he was hiding out in LA than if he was hiding out in Yemen.

I definitely agree that the default should always be arrest and try. The question is what happens when arresting and trying someone is not feasible?
 
Last edited:
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

The only way I would even rationally consider this is if it were strictly restricted for known gang members/gang leaders.


Great idea. Further, Deadly drone strikes would be an excellent way to wipe out the Mexican drug cartels, both in Mexico and the United States. They would have to be controlled by Americans so that the remote drone operators couldn't be bribed.
 
Last edited:
Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Great idea. Further, Deadly drone strikes would be an excellent way to wipe out the Mexican drug cartels, both in Mexico and the United States. They would have to be controlled by Americans so that the remote drone operators couldn't be bribed.

So the Judge Dredd approach of Judge, Jury and executioner all rolled up. Full and complete power to the government to decide who lives or dies with no due process only what the government decides.

Sorry, I spent 10 years of my life, went to war for my country and actually believe in that so called out dated document and value the oath I took.
 
Re: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Oh, a liberal city is the first to revolt against the Obama Justice Department---Succession must be afoot in the Ye Olde Dominion.....


City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation - US News and World Report

Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.

Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."

"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ


1. So just because it's a military option, my civil liberties go out the window?
if you serve as an enemy combatant with forces against the United States, yes, kiss your ass goodbye

2. I just showed that a US citizen was killed via drone by Obama and you are still trying to say that its a military action?
did the USA have reason to believe that person was an enemy combatant or was a collateral casualty resulting from a military action, then that person's demise was militarily legitimate. as the opinion tells us

3. Define the term "enemy combatant." That's the exact same language the Bush used.
the opinion identifies the criteria which must be in effect for one to be found a military drone target
you will find the three criteria within the first paragraph at this cite:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

if you serve as an enemy combatant with forces against the United States, yes, kiss your ass goodbye


did the USA have reason to believe that person was an enemy combatant or was a collateral casualty resulting from a military action, then that person's demise was militarily legitimate. as the opinion tells us


the opinion identifies the criteria which must be in effect for one to be found a military drone target
you will find the three criteria within the first paragraph at this cite:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Once again, you bought up the term "enemy combatant." Please define it.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I dont know aobut defining it broadly, but an AQ senior leader is one.
Once again, you bought up the term "enemy combatant." Please define it.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Once again, you bought up the term "enemy combatant." Please define it.
Main Entry: enemy combatant
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any member of the armed forces of a state with which another state is at war; also, any person in an armed conflict, including terrorism, who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war
Example: The term "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.
Etymology: c 2001
Enemy combatant | Define Enemy combatant at Dictionary.com
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

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.
he was a citizen
and if our authorities were dealing with him other than militarily, those rights would be preserved
however, as a member of our enemy he becomes a legitimate military target
the cited memo makes that distinction clear
 
Re: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Oh, a liberal city is the first to revolt against the Obama Justice Department---Succession must be afoot in the Ye Olde Dominion.....


City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation - US News and World Report

Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.

Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."

"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.

This is awesome.....now we just need the rest to do the same. Although some should start with some Tweets about Obama being Unconstitutional with this issue as well. Keep tying All those Unconstitutional moves he keeps making and keep using that word with the MS Media. Keep letting Obama hear it to.

Wonder how those 8 Democrats feel now about Obama closing them off from getting any more info?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

he was a citizen
and if our authorities were dealing with him other than militarily, those rights would be preserved
however, as a member of our enemy he becomes a legitimate military target
the cited memo makes that distinction clear

So how was his kid a legitimate military target? They do have the time log when he left Denver to go to Yemen to look for his father. Sure wasn't in Yemen to long before he was taken out.....huh?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

So how was his kid a legitimate military target? They do have the time log when he left Denver to go to Yemen to look for his father. Sure wasn't in Yemen to long before he was taken out.....huh?
what is the established time requirement to become affiliated with the enemy?
 
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.

What if the AQ guys were working undercover for the CIA? One never knows, do one? ;)
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

what is the established time requirement to become affiliated with the enemy?

How about showing one piece of evidence to validate the kid was even tied to AQ? Uhm looking for one's father in a Country that one has never been use to.....might be a clue as to why one would be visiting shops showing a picture around. Learning whats up where one is at, talking to people who he discovered his father knew.....Right?

Just some common sense things that would take place when one is looking for someone. Do you think there is a legitimate argument to throw Common sense out the window?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

How about showing one piece of evidence to validate the kid was even tied to AQ? Uhm looking for one's father in a Country that one has never been use to.....might be a clue as to why one would be visiting shops showing a picture around. Learning whats up where one is at, talking to people who he discovered his father knew.....Right?

Just some common sense things that would take place when one is looking for someone. Do you think there is a legitimate argument to throw Common sense out the window?
don't think the military/administration is going to share with us information which might undermine the military/intelligence-gathering methods used to make that assessment
but that does not prevent you from sharing with us the evidence which will prove he was not a legitimate drone target
 
Back
Top Bottom