• 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!

U.S. Memo Outlines Rationale for Drone Strikes on Citizens

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,228
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The U.S. government can kill an American citizen abroad if that person is plotting to attack Americans and U.S. authorities can't apprehend them, according to a newly declassified government memo. The document laid out the legal rationale for a drone-missile strike that killed terror suspect Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

The 2010 memo, which a court released Monday, has been at the heart of a debate about the legality of the U.S. government ordering deadly force from a drone against a U.S. citizen overseas. The strike that killed Mr. Awlaki also killed Samir Khan, a U.S. citizen who edited the terrorist magazine Inspire.

U.S. Memo Outlines Rationale for Drone Strikes on Citizens - WSJ

So very interesting. Scary. Good. Bad. Interesting.
 
I have no problem with it. Regardless of where one is born, if they are a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, targeting them overseas is just fine with me.

Is the person really a terrorist, or are you content to just take the government's word for it? This is why trial by a jury is ingrained into our Constitution.
 
Is the person really a terrorist, or are you content to just take the government's word for it? This is why trial by a jury is ingrained into our Constitution.

I think overseas, actions speak louder than words.
 
I think overseas, actions speak louder than words.

I would like to think that our Constitution is more than just words. It's a long slippery slope once you start shredding it.
 
This means that our government can kill any American they want by fiat, on just their say so, without a trial, and without having to present evidence. This alone should be considered grounds for Obama's impeachment.

I agreed all the way up until the impeach obama butthurt rage. I do believe these people should be given trial before just being killed.
 
I would like to think that our Constitution is more than just words. It's a long slippery slope once you start shredding it.

I think our constitution has been shredded a lot whole lot longer ago than just this.
 
This means that our government can kill any American they want by fiat, on just their say so, without a trial, and without having to present evidence. This alone should be considered grounds for Obama's impeachment.

Yep. When government can turn the IRS into an attack dog for it's 'foes', how far are we from boatloads of Waco's where government says 'those guys were planning terrorism'? What really should bring both 'sides' together against this stuff, is that who is in charge changes over time, so while 'your guy' might have the power now, eventually the force and corruption of government will turn…
 
How would you see lethal force by the police, when a domestic criminal will not give up? Within the country there is less reason, of course. And all the terrorist citizen must do is give himself up.

I don't see this as the same situation. A person committing a lethal act should be dealt with. A guy who is doing a weird desert obstacle course or sitting around a campfire saying the US sucks isn't reason to hit him with a air strike.
 
No memo will make me think droning down an American citizen anywhere is okay.
 
This means that our government can kill any American they want by fiat, on just their say so, without a trial, and without having to present evidence. This alone should be considered grounds for Obama's impeachment.

If there were any grounds for impeachment that we've heard by the right wing echo chamber... all of which are crap BS... this one definitely has meat on it.
 
If there were any grounds for impeachment that we've heard by the right wing echo chamber... all of which are crap BS...

Except had Bush gone to the extremes of violating the separation of power that the current administration has, boy would the media coverage and outcry be different. :lamo
 
I think overseas, actions speak louder than words.

From what I understand Anwar al-Awlaki was an American killed by a drone strike in Yemen and he hadn't killed anyone nor made any of the plans that killed anyone. They just said he was thinking about doing it and that he talked a lot of ****.
 
Except had Bush gone to the extremes of violating the separation of power that the current administration has, boy would the media coverage and outcry be different. :lamo

HE DID. Amazing how short people's memories are.
 
HE DID. Amazing how short people's memories are.

I have no doubt he and every other president has to some extent. How many signed a bill into law, then turned around and without congress changed that law? Or refused to enforce it?
 
Except had Bush gone to the extremes of violating the separation of power that the current administration has, boy would the media coverage and outcry be different. :lamo

I would ask for examples but I don't expect any... at least not any reputable ones.
 
I would ask for examples but I don't expect any... at least not any reputable ones.

The ACA. Signed into law with deadlines. Law, meaning, in print, these are the timelines. Without congress involved, without their approval, several of the timetables in the law were overridden/ignored. Is that 'reputable', or do you deny it happened?
 
HE DID. Amazing how short people's memories are.

Ain't it? I guess they don't remember Cheney arguing for the Unitarian Executive and how Bush did far more signing statements than Obama has whilst bitching about Obama's signing statements. Brains have definitely been washed clean of even the most recent history apparently.
 
From what I understand Anwar al-Awlaki was an American killed by a drone strike in Yemen and he hadn't killed anyone nor made any of the plans that killed anyone. They just said he was thinking about doing it and that he talked a lot of ****.

It might be the military in me taking charge, but I really do not care of what nationality a terrorist is. The idea is to get them first before they do harm to the USA or any of her people.
 
Last edited:
The ACA. Signed into law with deadlines. Law, meaning, in print, these are the timelines. Without congress involved, without their approval, several of the timetables in the law were overridden/ignored. Is that 'reputable', or do you deny it happened?

The ACA was passed by both houses of the congress and you argue that it was all executive authority that did it. Amazing thought process there.
 
It might be the military in me taking charge, but I really do not care of what nationality a terrorist is. The idea is to get them first before they do hard to the USA or any of her people.

Ok but who defines who is a terrorist? Some appointed bureaucrat with no evidence needed. Like I said, it's like Bush and Gitmo.

Bush apologists... "There are only terrorists in Gitmo."
Logical people... "How do you know they are terrorists?"
Bush apologists... "Because they are in Gitmo."
 
The ACA was passed by both houses of the congress and you argue that it was all executive authority that did it. Amazing thought process there.

Thanks for showing you do not actually read what is said.

Let me type slower, maybe you will be able to follow.

The ACA was signed into law.

The LAW contained certain deadlines for actions.

It was determined some of the actions could not be done per the timeline the LAW set forth.

The executive branch overrode those timelines.

Who has the authority to modify/change laws?
 
Back
Top Bottom