• 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

Monserrat said:
I feel like I'm missing something here?

Even if he wasn't partaking in any terrorist activities, the US had been warning people for that entire year to leave Yemen to not go into Yemen because we could no longer ensure their safety there. Al-Alwaki's son was killed after that so unless there's evidence that he was clearly a target of the strike then the US is not at fault for his death.
Click to expand...

Just to point out. Warning Americans that the government cannot guarantee their safety =/= warning Americans that their own government might decide to kill them.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Mr.Nick said:
If I saw a drone I would blast it out of the sky then retrieve the thing...
Click to expand...



Better get a 50 Cal. ;)
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

cpwill said:
Just to point out. Warning Americans that the government cannot guarantee their safety =/= warning Americans that their own government might decide to kill them.
Click to expand...

but in the case that I was talking about the government didn't decide to kill an american they went after I high ranking al-Qaeda member and the kid unfortunately was in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Unless you can prove that they were specifically targeting him?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Monserrat said:
but in the case that I was talking about the government didn't decide to kill an american they went after I high ranking al-Qaeda member and the kid unfortunately was in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Unless you can prove that they were specifically targeting him?
Click to expand...

That material is and will likely remain classified for another 50 or so years. So we don't know what the President knew about likely civilian deaths in the event of that strike. I'm just pointing out that the travel advisory defense is so flimsy a defense as to be almost nonexistant; as it addresses something completely different.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

cpwill said:
That material is and will likely remain classified for another 50 or so years. So we don't know what the President knew about likely civilian deaths in the event of that strike. I'm just pointing out that the travel advisory defense is so flimsy a defense as to be almost nonexistant; as it addresses something completely different.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making a defense with it... I just think background information is important, knowing where the event took place and the socio-political climate that it took place in.

This isn't an american who died in a safe location, he died as a result of an attack on a dangerous person in a dangerous place. I believe in some measure of personal responsibility if you go into a location that your own country cannot guarantee your safety and in fact urges you to leave because it's so dangerous well then you cannot really hold them accountable if you choose to ignore those warnings and then end up hurt or worse. Those 'classified documents' that you mentioned is something that you have no evidence for even existing, if you go down that route then fine but there's a separate forum for it in the conspiracy theory section.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I'm not going to go back and 281 posts on this, but I did want to point out the valid reason for this decision. If the US openly stated they would not attack a US citizen that is actively participating in AQ, what would AQ do? Put a US citizen in every AQ house, hut, cave, tent, and out house to insure their safety. The US has to be able to target Americans working with the enemy. This isn't political persecution or killing someone expected of robbing a grocery store. These are people that are in effect defectors working with an enemy. They are fair game.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

First step: go out and kill foreign suspected Al Qaeda operatives in foreign countries.
Next step: Kill American suspected Al Qaeda operatives in foreign countries.
Next step: Kill American suspected Al Qaeda operatives right here at home.
Next step: Expand the definition of "terrorist group".
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ksu_aviator said:
I'm not going to go back and 281 posts on this, but I did want to point out the valid reason for this decision. If the US openly stated they would not attack a US citizen that is actively participating in AQ, what would AQ do? Put a US citizen in every AQ house, hut, cave, tent, and out house to insure their safety. The US has to be able to target Americans working with the enemy. This isn't political persecution or killing someone expected of robbing a grocery store. These are people that are in effect defectors working with an enemy. They are fair game.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate job creation? Occupy AlQ!
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

970.png


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

MMC said:
What do you think about the Democrats going after this issue with Obama?

In a sign that the hearing had focused intense scrutiny on the drone program, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters after the hearing that she thinks it may be time to lift the secrecy off the program so that U.S. officials can acknowledge the strikes and correct what she said were exaggerated reports of civilian casualties.

Feinstein said she and a number of other senators are considering writing legislation to set up a special court system to regulate drone strikes, similar to the one that signs off on government surveillance in espionage and terror cases.

Speaking with uncharacteristic openness about the classified program, Feinstein said the CIA had allowed her staff to make more than 30 visits to the CIA's Langley, Va., headquarters to monitor strikes, but that the transparency needed to be widened.

"I think the process set up internally is a solid process," Feinstein said, but added: "I think there's an absence of knowing exactly who is responsible for what decision. So I think we need to look at this whole process and figure a way to make it transparent and identifiable."......snip~

What do you think of the Idea of a Special Court?
Click to expand...

Not sure if that constitutional.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ReformCollege said:
The only way I would even rationally consider this is if it were strictly restricted for known gang members/gang leaders.
Click to expand...

Constitution says due process of law. Convict first, kill second. I really have no problem with the govt killing of proven murderers, so long as it's the local state govt and provide opportunity for legal defense. Unless they are wanted in multiple states, then maybe the feds can go after them. However, I will not condone death by drone without intel proving that they committed crimes worthy of death without warning or legal process.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

American said:
Not sure if that constitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't even know why they even are bringing up a special court. Especially when all say it is going nowhere. That there will be no action for a special court. If such is the case then why are they even going thru those motions. We have a court that can deal with such and they can make sure whoever is giving that order. That there is oversite upon it.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

justabubba said:
the withholding of the opportunity to vote or bear arms if one is a felon
Click to expand...


So you are in favor of convicted felons owning weapons?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ksu_aviator said:
I'm not going to go back and 281 posts on this, but I did want to point out the valid reason for this decision. If the US openly stated they would not attack a US citizen that is actively participating in AQ, what would AQ do? Put a US citizen in every AQ house, hut, cave, tent, and out house to insure their safety. The US has to be able to target Americans working with the enemy. This isn't political persecution or killing someone expected of robbing a grocery store. These are people that are in effect defectors working with an enemy. They are fair game.
Click to expand...

Tell me, how would they get this many willing citizens when the majority of Americans hate AQ?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Mr. Invisible said:
Tell me, how would they get this many willing citizens when the majority of Americans hate AQ?
Click to expand...

The point is that these citizens are now enemies...how could you not get that?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Indeed said:
Constitution says due process of law. Convict first, kill second. I really have no problem with the govt killing of proven murderers, so long as it's the local state govt and provide opportunity for legal defense. Unless they are wanted in multiple states, then maybe the feds can go after them. However, I will not condone death by drone without intel proving that they committed crimes worthy of death without warning or legal process.
Click to expand...

Its wishy washy. If they are shooting to kill, I'd perfer a drone take them out then put an officer's life in the line of fire.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ReformCollege said:
Its wishy washy. If they are shooting to kill, I'd perfer a drone take them out then put an officer's life in the line of fire.
Click to expand...

Yes but my point was that if they are American citizens, they should be afforded the rights that come with that title, and one of those is a trial, not just a hunch that he/she might have committed acts of terrorism or treason. There needs to at least be overwhelming evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, and even then, there should still be some kind of trial. We can't just have our federal govt running around killing citizens on a whim because it creates an atmosphere of fear toward our govt, which makes it less of a govt for, of, and by the people than the governing of the people by elites who must know better than the average person because they are just so much better than we are. It allows and promotes military ruling of the population, which is a rather unAmerican idea.

I understand that sometimes it's just not that simple, and it is better not to risk mens' lives when you don't have to, but there at least has to be some kind of proof. Why do we have a constitution if we allow our govt to ignore it completely? This is one of our most basic rights, and now they take it without repercussion. If we aren't going to do it by the books, why the hell do we have the books in the first place?

And sorry about being wishy washy, I wasn't doing so well yesterday.

Oh, and on the point of state vs. fed govt killing of citizens within the U.S., nevermind. As I said, I wasn't doing so well yesterday and had something mixed up in my head.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ksu_aviator said:
The point is that these citizens are now enemies...how could you not get that?
Click to expand...

And who declares them enemies? Have they been indicted by a jury? Or are they just the proverbial Enemy of The State?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

j-mac said:
So you are in favor of convicted felons owning weapons?
Click to expand...

Should Martha Stewart be able to possess a firearm?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Henry David said:
And who declares them enemies? Have they been indicted by a jury? Or are they just the proverbial Enemy of The State?
Click to expand...

That's asinine. What is the government supposed to do? Let's take your standard right here and apply it to a traditional war. Would the government have to gather evidence, present that evidence to the court, get an arrest warrant, arrest the enemy, bring the to court, put on a trial of their piers and then, if found guilty, put them back on the battle field and kill them? Is that how you envision this? These people are actively engaging in a war against the United States. They shouldn't be given special treatment just because they are American.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Henry David said:
And who declares them enemies? Have they been indicted by a jury? Or are they just the proverbial Enemy of The State?
Click to expand...

They don't love Big Brother.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

ksu_aviator said:
That's asinine. What is the government supposed to do? Let's take your standard right here and apply it to a traditional war. Would the government have to gather evidence, present that evidence to the court, get an arrest warrant, arrest the enemy, bring the to court, put on a trial of their piers and then, if found guilty, put them back on the battle field and kill them? Is that how you envision this? These people are actively engaging in a war against the United States. They shouldn't be given special treatment just because they are American.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that there is no declaration of war here, as required by the US Constitution. So we are working outside the law here to start with. The sophistry of the AUMF is insufficient. The President can already wage war, as pointed out by FDR decades ago.

Or, are we working within the rule of law? Your choice.

We invaded their country, good sir, not the other way around.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Dittohead not! said:
They don't love Big Brother.
Click to expand...

Well it seems to me that sooner or later a person must make a decision about where he stands, in the relationship between a citizen and his government.

When it comes to law and how things should be decided, in general terms things should be decided by the courts in favor of the individual, and against the government.

Of course there are exceptions, and that's what criminal charges and procedures are. But first a citizen must violate the law before he can be held, Habeas Corpus.

But the sad reality is that most federal agencies are concerned about the government. They ARE the government, and they protect their own, every time.

So I see the government as necessary, but it must operate in accordance with the law of the land, USC. If it doesn't, citizens have an obligation to criticize it. As Thomas Paine put it, it is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Henry David said:
Keep in mind that there is no declaration of war here, as required by the US Constitution. So we are working outside the law here to start with. The sophistry of the AUMF is insufficient. The President can already wage war, as pointed out by FDR decades ago.

Or, are we working within the rule of law? Your choice.

We invaded their country, good sir, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Yes there is: Congressional Declaration of War on Terror, 14 Sept 2001
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom