• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”
In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

How far can the government go? What happens if they find that this situation within the continental US? Where could this go?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Vote Obama 2008! He Will End George W Bush's Abuse Of Power!





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

Liberals can get away with murder. Literally! They have the media in their pocket. No check and balance needed when there's a Democrat in the White House.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I'd like to think this couldn't happen here, but I have a little bit of concern that we are heading down a slippery slope. It didn't just start. It started with local police buying and obtain surplus military equipment. And not he govt is all over the idea of limiting fire arms.
 
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.

They dont get due process?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

If anything is worthy of impeachment, this might be. Murder is a high crime.

Well we aren't there yet.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.”

So drone strikes are part of an inherent right to self defense but owning an "assault" rifle isn't?

Ok, where can I purchase a drone? I'll take two w/ Sidewinder's please

How far can the government go? What happens if they find that this situation within the continental US? Where could this go?

As far as it wants. It's no chore really, if you are this government and you break the law, well you find someone who will sit their straight faced and reinterprete the meanings of words or you just go on ahead and change the law all together.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a drone strike on US soil within the next 10 years.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

They dont get due process?

That depends. Are they shooting to kill?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I'd like to think this couldn't happen here, but I have a little bit of concern that we are heading down a slippery slope. It didn't just start. It started with local police buying and obtain surplus military equipment. And not he govt is all over the idea of limiting fire arms.

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

This is just wrong. There should be some legal proceeding to do something to judge the actions of a citizen before such an action is taken. Try them in absentia or go through a proceeding to revoke citizenship, but not just on executive fiat.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

NDAA allows the capture & incarceration of Americans without due process, without evidence
The drone strikes allow the ordered death of Americans without due process, without evidence
And they want to make sure you dont have the weaponry to fight back

I say New Zealand is looking like a great place to live.
 
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

surprised so many of the reich wing are opposed to our military's eradicating enemy forces
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

i have never been comfortable with some of these WOT policies. too little oversight.

i also have to ask myself, how would we respond if China used drones to target Chinese dissidents in the US?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Declare war, and rightfully so.
i have never been comfortable with some of these WOT policies. too little oversight.

i also have to ask myself, how would we respond if China used drones to target Chinese dissidents in the US?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

i have never been comfortable with some of these WOT policies. too little oversight.

i also have to ask myself, how would we respond if China used drones to target Chinese dissidents in the US?


we should be very, very concerned about chinese drones flying around undetected in US air space [/s]
 
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

surprised so many of the reich wing are opposed to our military's eradicating enemy forces

Yes, but are you confortable with the government arbitrarily deciding who is the enemy of the nation? Personally, I'm not confortable with the government having arbitrary choice in that matter.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Yes, but are you confortable with the government arbitrarily deciding who is the enemy of the nation? Personally, I'm not confortable with the government having arbitrary choice in that matter.

our military makes that decision on our behalf every day
just because it is someone of American birth who has decided to be our nation's enemy does not change a thing
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

our military makes that decision on our behalf every day
just because it is someone of American birth who has decided to be our nation's enemy does not change a thing

And what if the goernment 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.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

And what if the goernment 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.
all that opinion did was make a legitimate enemy combatant a legitimate enemy target
those traitors do not get protected any longer only because they were fortunate enough to be made in the USA
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

all that opinion did was make a legitimate enemy combatant a legitimate enemy target
those traitors do not get protected any longer only because they were fortunate enough to be made in the USA

Yes and when the government decides that protesting against it is justification for a drone strike, screw the protestors right? They shouldn't be protesting if they know what's good for them right?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

i also have to ask myself, how would we respond if China used drones to target Chinese dissidents in the US?

The US operates drones with the host government's consent.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

I have never understood obamas duplicitous policies on terrorist. If we catch one they get a trial and are afforded all the rights of a criminal that held up a liquor store but if we find where a suspected terrorist is hiding we kill him and everyone around him, makes no sense to me.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel
How far can the government go? What happens if they find that this situation within the continental US? Where could this go?

It seems they are retroactively trying to justify Waco, or any like instances in the future.

The question remains: What if this power gets into the wrong hands? Not just for now but 2o, 40, 60 years into the future. They took that poor bugger to jail with the claim that he had cause the attack on Benghazi. This would seem to be an abuse of government power, and quite an open one. The 'checks and balances' that have served the country so well over the centuries might be in danger of eroding.
 
Back
Top Bottom