Justice Department memo reveals legal case for...

[Fern]

So, you guys are opposed to this:

a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense

Ever heard of the Civil War?

Let's retroactively impeach Lincoln, shall we?

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think it depends upon the circumstance. The President has a constitutional obligation to protect the USA. "Imminent threat" would seem to preclude the opportunity for Due Process. While I'm too lazy to research, my question is how does this get around the law prohibiting the President from assassinations.

Fern

 

[sigurros81]

So, you guys are opposed to this:



Ever heard of the Civil War?

Let's retroactively impeach Lincoln, shall we?

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think it depends upon the circumstance. The President has a constitutional obligation to protect the USA. "Imminent threat" would seem to preclude the opportunity for Due Process. While I'm too lazy to research, my question is how does this get around the law prohibiting the President from assassinations.

Fern

STOP asking the god damn questions and grab a pitchfork already.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Personally I have no major problem with this. If someone with American citizenship relocates to a country where we have no effective extradition AND is an active part of an entity with whom we are at war, I think that makes them a legitimate military target. I don't get why a Taliban leader with American citizenship should be protected when his partners in terror are not. I wouldn't object to a judicial review, someone outside the military (say, SCOTUS or a federal appeals judge) reviewing the evidenciary material to concur (or not) that the case for declaring the accused a legitimate target, but I really don't believe any American President takes this stuff lightly.

This.

Fern

 

[monovillage]

So, you guys are opposed to this:



Ever heard of the Civil War?

Let's retroactively impeach Lincoln, shall we?

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think it depends upon the circumstance. The President has a constitutional obligation to protect the USA. "Imminent threat" would seem to preclude the opportunity for Due Process. While I'm too lazy to research, my question is how does this get around the law prohibiting the President from assassinations.

Fern

I see it as the same as the War Powers Resolution.

 

[zinfamous]

And the left hated bush and all he stood for, saying everything he did was wrong.


So wheres the left now when their boy is doing what bush did?

Oh thats right, you want faux outrage, look at the left.

the "left" is actually rather pissed about it.

wait, what left? is there a left in this country? no, not really.

 

[zinfamous]

Personally I have no major problem with this. If someone with American citizenship relocates to a country where we have no effective extradition AND is an active part of an entity with whom we are at war, I think that makes them a legitimate military target. I don't get why a Taliban leader with American citizenship should be protected when his partners in terror are not. I wouldn't object to a judicial review, someone outside the military (say, SCOTUS or a federal appeals judge) reviewing the evidenciary material to concur (or not) that the case for declaring the accused a legitimate target, but I really don't believe any American President takes this stuff lightly.

...and this is why I am conflicted with this, because this is pretty much how I feel.

 

[monovillage]

the "left" is actually rather pissed about it.

wait, what left? is there a left in this country? no, not really.

Yes, the calls from Code Pink and other leftist organizations for the arrest and conviction of President Obama for war crimes has been deafening.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Who has proven that they are terrorists or traitors?? There has been no trial. That's the problem with all of this, you are taking the word of the branch of government that has never been granted the right to judge/jury and executioner.

That's some Judge Dredd bullshit. Are we living in Megacity now?

Without a fair trial there is no proof that someone is a terrorist or collaborator or secessionist or communist or traitor or undesirable. You can't just declare someone something without a trial and think that justifies assassinations and executions.

That's some third world tin-pot dictators shit.

So, an Al Qaeda leader with American citizenship plotting the deaths of Americans in Pakistan. We should let hiim get away with killing Americans? Risk sending in and losing the lifes of American soliders so we can put that person on trial?

Sorry, if you don't think they're a traitor and enemy to this country then you should be against every single time a citizen takes justice in their own hands in the this country instead of letting the authorities and a trial to judge their innocense/guilt.

War is hell. And saving American lives > than some traitor/terrorist POS

 

[NoStateofMind]

I can't believe the amount of seemingly respectable people defending this shit. How can you allow the murder of an American citizen without due process? How do you rationalize the death of citizens without oversight? If you guys defend this I have serious doubts in our future as a society. The fox is guarding the hen house and somehow thats okay. Until its you.....

 

[NoStateofMind]

So, an Al Qaeda leader with American citizenship plotting the deaths of Americans in Pakistan. We should let hiim get away with killing Americans? Risk sending in and losing the lifes of American soliders so we can put that person on trial?

Sorry, if you don't think they're a traitor and enemy to this country then you should be against every single time a citizen takes justice in their own hands in the this country instead of letting the authorities and a trial to judge their innocense/guilt.

War is hell. And saving American lives > than some traitor/terrorist POS

One fucking man? OMG lets break out the nukes! overreacting a bit aren't we?

And who gets to decide that this person is a "traitor/terrorist POS"?

 

[zinfamous]

the "left" is actually rather pissed about it.

wait, what left? is there a left in this country? no, not really.

Yes, the calls from Code Pink and other leftist organizations for the arrest and conviction of President Obama for war crimes has been deafening.

ahhhhhh...so maybe you're starting to get it.

go back and read what I said.

 

[monovillage]

ahhhhhh...so maybe you're starting to get it.

go back and read what I said.

There's still a left in this country, it's just that it's bereft of integrity when it's one of their own that's committing the crimes.

 

[werepossum]

So, you guys are opposed to this:



Ever heard of the Civil War?

Let's retroactively impeach Lincoln, shall we?

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think it depends upon the circumstance. The President has a constitutional obligation to protect the USA. "Imminent threat" would seem to preclude the opportunity for Due Process. While I'm too lazy to research, my question is how does this get around the law prohibiting the President from assassinations.

Fern

As long as he's using military force on military targets (which in the War on Terror can be a pretty convoluted determination in itself) he's golden. It's not an assassination, but a military strike. Same thing applies with snipers, as long as they are in uniform.

...and this is why I am conflicted with this, because this is pretty much how I feel.

It's a bad thing and a bad precedent, but I see no alternative that isn't equally as bad. None of us should be real comfortable with it, but then, that applies to war in general. A drone strike is cleaner than many forms of death in war.

 

[ivwshane]

intersting. they are even pointing out the fact that Dems seem to be quite on it.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/


UPDATE: What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration’s radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

bush gets marches, protests, etc etc

the LMSM running store after store for weeks on end over TAPPING PHONE lines. The nightly news runs stores. The sunday news runs stores.

Obama blows american's up and you get the bare minimum coverage.


And the left will again claim, oh no there's no basis. Because they've repeated that lie so many times, they now believe it to be true.

Yes, the calls from Code Pink and other leftist organizations for the arrest and conviction of President Obama for war crimes has been deafening.

I'm curious as to what your left wing sources are that have been silent? I didn't realize any of you visited left wing sites or watched left wing news sources.

If you did then you would know that this has been a hot button for the lefties for a while.


I expect lying and ignorance from mono and incorruptible but surely everyone else isn't stuck in their own bubble.

http://droneswatch.org/tag/codepink/

http://www.dailypaul.com/256478/rac...w-both-romney-and-obama-fail-on-drone-strikes

http://www.thenewsburner.com/2013/01/11/rachel-maddow-rips-obama-on-use-of-drones/

And some history on Obamas position on drones.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/



But let's not let facts get in the way of your faux outrage that the left isn't outraged enough.

You guys are pathetic.

 

[michal1980]

I'm curious as to what your left wing sources are that have been silent? I didn't realize any of you visited left wing sites or watched left wing news sources.

If you did then you would know that this has been a hot button for the lefties for a while.


I expect lying and ignorance from mono and incorruptible but surely everyone else isn't stuck in their own bubble.

http://droneswatch.org/tag/codepink/

http://www.dailypaul.com/256478/rac...w-both-romney-and-obama-fail-on-drone-strikes

http://www.thenewsburner.com/2013/01/11/rachel-maddow-rips-obama-on-use-of-drones/

And some history on Obamas position on drones.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/



But let's not let facts get in the way of your faux outrage that the left isn't outraged enough.

You guys are pathetic.

deny
deny
deny.

When bush was WIRETAPPING.

The left blew its top. It wasn't just a story. It was story after story. And continual pounding of bush.

There were subpoenas, attempts to censure, protests, lawsuits etc etc.

All for tapping phone lines.

Obama is KILLING American's.

And the left? where are their protestors? Where are the lawsuits? subpoenas? nope.

reporting something does not mean the LMSM cares. That's the bare min they have to do.

 

[monovillage]

I'm curious as to what your left wing sources are that have been silent? I didn't realize any of you visited left wing sites or watched left wing news sources.
If you did then you would know that this has been a hot button for the lefties for a while.
I expect lying and ignorance from mono and incorruptible but surely everyone else isn't stuck in their own bubble.
http://droneswatch.org/tag/codepink/
http://www.dailypaul.com/256478/rac...w-both-romney-and-obama-fail-on-drone-strikes
http://www.thenewsburner.com/2013/01/11/rachel-maddow-rips-obama-on-use-of-drones/
And some history on Obamas position on drones.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-apologize-policy-shift-drone-strikes-/
But let's not let facts get in the way of your faux outrage that the left isn't outraged enough.
You guys are pathetic.

You little sleaze turd, you have to scrape the bottom of your bucket to find such useless and barely advertised sites as that e-mail site from code pink. No main stream media coverage on Nightly News that they used to get or even got when it was rumored that Bush may go to Europe. Or when Condoleeza Rice or even Rove FFS was being harassed and threatened.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/bush_and_blair_found_guilty_of_war_crimes_for_iraq_attack/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/07/bush_amnesty_arrest/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/02/bush_not_at_risk_of_arrest_in.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/cod...n-s-arrest-of-condoleezza-rice-for-war-crimes
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80288.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ries_to_arrest_karl_rove_at_book_signing.html

You lying sack of garbage.

 

[fskimospy]

So, you guys are opposed to this:



Ever heard of the Civil War?

Let's retroactively impeach Lincoln, shall we?

As to whether or not this is constitutional, I think it depends upon the circumstance. The President has a constitutional obligation to protect the USA. "Imminent threat" would seem to preclude the opportunity for Due Process. While I'm too lazy to research, my question is how does this get around the law prohibiting the President from assassinations.

Fern

There is no law prohibiting assassination, only executive orders. Presumably we can all figure out how the president gets around those.

Also, if you read the document it basically defines 'imminent threat' so broadly that the word has no meaning.

 

[boomerang]

I'm cool with this as long as I get that free health care. (Hmm, maybe a phone too.)

Three years, 11 months and two weeks to go! Forward!

Remember, he did promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America!

 

[LTC8K6]

I still can't get around the idea that water-boarding a suspected threat to the US or it's allies is very, very bad, but blowing up a suspected threat to the US is okay.

 

[fskimospy]

I still can't get around the idea that water-boarding a suspected threat to the US or it's allies is very, very bad, but blowing up a suspected threat to the US is okay.

I think that's a bit oversimplified.

 

[boomerang]

I still can't get around the idea that water-boarding a suspected threat to the US or it's allies is very, very bad, but blowing up a suspected threat to the US is okay.

Don't think about it too hard and you'll get it. Just go with your gut.

Killing a suspected threat with a drone is OK.
KIlling a convicted murderer and rapist after supporting him on death row for 20+ years is bad.
Killing the unborn is good.
Killing a person of color while that person is commiting a violent crime is bad.
Killing white folks by dragging them behind your car is good.

Oh shit, now I'm confused. I just can't think like the left does.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't think about it too hard and you'll get it. Just go with your gut.

Killing a suspected threat with a drone is OK.
KIlling a convicted murderer and rapist after supporting him on death row for 20+ years is bad.
Killing the unborn is good.
Killing a person of color while that person is commiting a violent crime is bad.
Killing white folks by dragging them behind your car is good.

Oh shit, now I'm confused. I just can't think like the left does.

You can't think, that's for sure.

If you actually believe this you're either nuts or really stupid. Or maybe you just live in the ultra right wing media bubble.

 

[Exterous]

So, an Al Qaeda leader with American citizenship plotting the deaths of Americans in Pakistan. We should let hiim get away with killing Americans? Risk sending in and losing the lifes of American soliders so we can put that person on trial?

Sorry, if you don't think they're a traitor and enemy to this country then you should be against every single time a citizen takes justice in their own hands in the this country instead of letting the authorities and a trial to judge their innocense/guilt.

War is hell. And saving American lives > than some traitor/terrorist POS

Did you bother to read the article?

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,

No proof of plotting required to kill an American. Only that they be involved in 'recent' 'activites'. Neither recent nor activities is defined. So - what constitutes a recent activity that will get an american killed? I guess we'll have to wait to find out and hope our government won't abuse its power. Never happened before, right? I certainly can't think of a time when faulty intelligence has lead to war or has lead to the mistaken killing of innocents. No need to bother with oversight. No need for any sort of checks and balances the retarded founding fathers saddled us with

I don't think anyone is saying we should never intervene when an American is plotting to kill other Americans. The anger is over such a loosely defined situation and no oversight we are forced to trust a single branch of the government to make the right decision and to not abuse that. I don't have nearly that much faith in the government nor do I believe government policies from either side warrant such faith

 

[FerrelGeek]

Sadly, I agree with you. Sad over what we're agreeing on, that is.

Thing is, this is exactly where the media should rise up and be what they were intended to be. They didn't get the name 'the fourth branch of government' for nothing. They have the power to make this an issue.

I still maintain that if this were a rep admin, the msm would be on this like a pitbull, as they should. They'd be demanding resignations and investigations, as they should. But I'll be shocked if that ends up the case here. My fear is that within a week, the only outlets discussing this will be Fox news, worldnetdaily, Drudge, and conservative talk radio; which means most on the left will have all the justification they need to ignore the issue and go back to blaming Bush. I see nothing in Obama's past behavior that leads me to believe he'll not continue on his current course.

I actually agree with you, but not because of media bias. These stories will die in short order, but they will die because no powerful groups will push for them. With the warrantless wiretapping you had democrats controlling congress that could beat Bush up with it. That's why it was such a big deal.

Now congress is made up of 1.) democrats who won't attack their own guy and 2.) Republicans in the house who generally agree with the policy.

Sadly there is no confluence of constituents and political advantage here, meaning a short lived story, no matter how serious the problem.

I actually agree with you, but not because of media bias. These stories will die in short order, but they will die because no powerful groups will push for them. With the warrantless wiretapping you had democrats controlling congress that could beat Bush up with it. That's why it was such a big deal.

Now congress is made up of 1.) democrats who won't attack their own guy and 2.) Republicans in the house who generally agree with the policy.

Sadly there is no confluence of constituents and political advantage here, meaning a short lived story, no matter how serious the problem.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think that's a bit oversimplified.

How?