HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Rude Pundit: Things i...

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:12 AM

The Rude Pundit: Things in the Memo on the Killing of Americans ...

That Liberals Would Scream About If Bush Was President

Now that a 16-page memo was leaked to NBC News that details the "legal" justification for targeted drone strikes on American citizens abroad, Obama-supporting liberals (like yours truly) have to confront, in vivid, concrete ways, the actions of a White House that, if a Republican were in office, would cause us to spew blood vendettas against those responsible. Oh, wait. When a Republican was in office, we spewed those oaths over the detention and torture of Americans and others. Now we're up to stone cold murder. We should be even more outraged. The fact that a Democrat is president does not change that.

The memo itself contains chilling passages - denial of rights, bureaucratic redefinitions of words, and the manipulative citing of court cases. Check it out:

1. "Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment, that individual's citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation." Why? Because the government would be "forestalling the threat of violence" by killing the fuck out the American. You got that? Not "forestalling violence," but "forestalling the threat." The Rude Pundit's neighbor is an asshole who owns a gun. He feels the threat of violence every day. Where's his drone strike? Oh, yeah, rights do exist then.

2. "(T)he AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) itself does not set forth an express geographic limitation on the use of force it authorizes." You got that, right? The memo says we can blow shit up wherever we want. Of course, if an al-Qaida-associated American was in, say, France, we probably wouldn't be using missiles of fiery death because we wouldn't want to upset "civilized" people.

3. "(T)he condition that an operational leader presents an 'imminent' threat of violence 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." So here, "imminent" doesn't actually mean "imminent." It means "plausible, maybe, given the right circumstances, should the stars align and a crazy goatfucker gives the thumbs-up." But if you said, "Meh, could happen," then murdering the shit out of an American would be a paranoid overreaction at best, an out and out crime at worst. So "imminent" it is. See? The Obama administration has fun with words, too. Remember when the Bush Department of Justice redefined "torture"? We loved that.

4. "(W)here the al-Qaida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there's no evidence suggesting he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member's involvement in al-Qaida's continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat." This is the one that makes the Rude Pundit feel a hot pain in his bowels like after he ate that spicy pork at a Filipino restaurant. The absence of exculpatory evidence is proof that someone needs to be blown to bits. If that doesn't make you queasy, you just don't really care about living in a nation of laws.

5. The use of the Supreme Court decisions in Tennessee v. Garner and Haig v. Agee. The former actually limited the use of deadly force by the police against fleeing suspects, although this memo cites the decision as supporting the killing of Americans abroad. The latter case gave the government broader latitude to take away passports from citizens. Apparently, when an American is made into a meaty paste by a drone missile, the computer jockey who fired it is allowed to say, "Passport revoked" in an Arnold Schwarzenegger voice.

6. "A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination...a lethal operation conducted against 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 that would not violate the assassination ban." But remember: "imminent" doesn't mean "imminent" in any sense that we would normally understand "imminent." So, hey, why the fuck not say that an assassination is not really an assassination?

Republicans will have hearings when someone in the Obama administration farts too loudly. Think they'll actually have the balls to have a fair hearing on this? And if they're willing to do this, let's not forget about all this shit they let the previous administration get away with. The nation is now filthy with hypocrites.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/02/things-in-memo-on-killing-of-americans.html

109 replies, 7877 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 109 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Rude Pundit: Things in the Memo on the Killing of Americans ... (Original post)
meegbear Feb 2013 OP
LiberalEsto Feb 2013 #1
hootinholler Feb 2013 #2
Hell Hath No Fury Feb 2013 #3
Ghost Dog Feb 2013 #90
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #4
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #57
Marr Feb 2013 #61
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #82
Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #5
lark Feb 2013 #6
dhill926 Feb 2013 #7
colorado_ufo Feb 2013 #8
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #9
dotymed Feb 2013 #10
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #11
KoKo Feb 2013 #49
Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #12
caraher Feb 2013 #71
another_liberal Feb 2013 #13
Raggaemon Feb 2013 #18
another_liberal Feb 2013 #41
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #59
another_liberal Feb 2013 #63
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #81
Deny and Shred Feb 2013 #85
Raggaemon Feb 2013 #107
Volaris Feb 2013 #64
msanthrope Feb 2013 #24
another_liberal Feb 2013 #43
msanthrope Feb 2013 #69
another_liberal Feb 2013 #87
msanthrope Feb 2013 #89
another_liberal Feb 2013 #93
msanthrope Feb 2013 #94
another_liberal Feb 2013 #95
msanthrope Feb 2013 #97
another_liberal Feb 2013 #98
msanthrope Feb 2013 #100
another_liberal Feb 2013 #103
msanthrope Feb 2013 #104
another_liberal Feb 2013 #105
msanthrope Feb 2013 #106
another_liberal Feb 2013 #108
SCVDem Feb 2013 #14
indepat Feb 2013 #50
Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #101
Raggaemon Feb 2013 #15
KoKo Feb 2013 #34
quaker bill Feb 2013 #54
TroglodyteScholar Feb 2013 #37
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #60
eridani Feb 2013 #72
Catherina Feb 2013 #16
Raggaemon Feb 2013 #20
Catherina Feb 2013 #32
HangOnKids Feb 2013 #35
Catherina Feb 2013 #55
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #62
FiveGoodMen Feb 2013 #77
ellisonz Feb 2013 #17
msanthrope Feb 2013 #21
ellisonz Feb 2013 #26
msanthrope Feb 2013 #28
ellisonz Feb 2013 #30
msanthrope Feb 2013 #31
amandabeech Feb 2013 #86
KoKo Feb 2013 #42
ellisonz Feb 2013 #83
gholtron Feb 2013 #19
KoKo Feb 2013 #44
gholtron Feb 2013 #45
KoKo Feb 2013 #47
gholtron Feb 2013 #67
gholtron Feb 2013 #74
Fiendish Thingy Feb 2013 #92
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #48
gholtron Feb 2013 #65
gholtron Feb 2013 #70
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #102
sagat Feb 2013 #22
another_liberal Feb 2013 #96
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #23
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #25
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #27
msanthrope Feb 2013 #29
KoKo Feb 2013 #33
woo me with science Feb 2013 #38
ieoeja Feb 2013 #36
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #52
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #39
KoKo Feb 2013 #40
woo me with science Feb 2013 #51
Catherina Feb 2013 #56
indepat Feb 2013 #46
Jeevus Feb 2013 #53
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #58
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #75
jsr Feb 2013 #66
steve2470 Feb 2013 #68
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #91
Willendorf Feb 2013 #73
840high Feb 2013 #76
leftstreet Feb 2013 #78
dtom67 Feb 2013 #79
adieu Feb 2013 #80
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #84
malthaussen Feb 2013 #88
treestar Feb 2013 #99
woo me with science Feb 2013 #109

Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:28 AM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:02 PM

2. SIGH n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:10 PM

3. "The fact that a Democrat is president does not change that."

Thank you, Rude One, for saying what must be said.

Extrajudical assassinations of Amercian citizens -- criminal no matter WHO is doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:32 AM

90. Is it unquestionably OK, as seems, if we're

not US citizens, then, as we're extrajudicially mowed down by US citizens &/or US mercenaries of whatever nationality on whatever excuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:25 PM

4. It's called paranoia. It's an illness, and it seems to have infected our government.

As I understand it, a threat that justifies self-defense must be "imminent" to a reasonable person. I thought it took a jury to determine whether a threat would have been "imminent" to a reasonable person.

But this law preempts the jury.

The Obama administration calls that justice?

How's that?

And the target of this "self-defense" doesn't have to have done a thing.

212+ years under our Constitution, and we end up with this. What's the use?

What kind of country are we anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:45 PM

57. Obama's definition of "Stand Your Ground" National Level

horrible but true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:57 PM

61. I think it's called "empire", actually.

Over the last couple of decades, we've slowly come out as a more and more aggressively imperial power, and the sorts of force such a power needs to employ are different from those of a plain old legitimate Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #61)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:53 AM

82. yeah & the U.S. is tracking close to the British Empire

much faster than tptb expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:33 PM

5. Add to this the "austerity" con being played

by both parties and you have just one more example of how Americans are being played by the 1%'ers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:51 PM

6. Wrong is wrong

no matter which party is in the White House. Obama is wrong about this, just as Bush was wrong with his Iraq lies and waterboarding.

FOR SHAME!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:00 PM

7. a sad and disgusted K & R......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:08 PM

8. Re: Number 6 -

So, if an imminent, or semi-imminent, or kinda-sorta-imminent threat, nullifies the definition of assassination, then the only "legitimate assassination" would be one carried out against someone who is deemed to be no threat at all. Am I understanding this correctly? Is this from the same dictionary that defines "legitimate rape?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:20 PM

9. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:23 PM

10. Sadly Kpete,

we know that corporations run the govt. It doesn't matter anymore what letter comes before your name. We get 2 corporate choices. Sadly, because of the "banked good-will" of d's, they can get by with more than most r's. We don't question their intentions as much. It is all corporate, all the time now.
The MIC loves it...they and others purchased America years ago. "Free trade acts" under the d's would never have passed under r's....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:27 PM

11. This is a topic for which the Rude Pundit's style is totally appropriate.

This shit is outrageous. And it's the kind of thing that makes people say there's little difference between the two parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:29 PM

49. I almost didn't read this excellent post by "RP" because they are

kind of a bit OTT usually for me. But, "RP" sure nails this one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:30 PM

12. Were

If Bush *were* president. C'mon Rude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:34 PM

71. Yeah

The fact is, Bush *was* president. Let's all observe a moment of silence for the subjunctive...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:42 PM

13. As a commentator . . .

As a commentator on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now noted this morning, there is nothing in this memo (or presumably the full White Paper) which restricts our government to using this authority to kill Americans only abroad. In other words, this or any future administration would be justified in killing American citizens in this country, without warrant or charge, merely because they "believe" the individuals are members of a terrorist group with intent to harm the United States.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo

(Get your head down, Ted Nugent!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:26 PM

18. RE: As a commentator

You appear to look at this as if there's some other options, anyone who engages in plots that intend to harm innocent Americans is committing treason, but you think we have a margin for error ? What if we go your route, we expend the resources ( have any idea what that may involve ? ), we take the time debating and hand wringing over defintions and then something happens, an attack here or there ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:22 PM

41. There are laws . . .

There are laws regarding warrants, charges and trials which support an individual's Civil Rights under our Constitution. Those should not be flippantly dismissed with; in fact, they should not be dismissed with at all.

If an American citizen is plotting mayhem, arrest, charge and try him, then, perhaps, punish him. Do not jump to conclusions and launch a missile at his car from a drone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

59. don't worry, the Patriot Act is now being used against

gang members, so the very definition of "terrorist" is the same as "witch" at an earlier time, if they can call you that, then you MUST be guilty! Coming soon to American soil, first expect drone strikes on inner city areas, also at the Mexican border, mostly brown people, then pot houses in suburbs-oopsie, too late to complain then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KakistocracyHater (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:14 PM

63. Scary as hell.

What if the Republicans manage to steal the Presidency again, as they did in 2000? My guess is they would employ this legal reasoning at least as broadly as you suggest. It is scary as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:52 AM

81. when they get away with certain things they push

things further & further. Yes it IS scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:35 AM

85. At what point

does peaceful protest get redefined as 'terrorism?' At what point does voicing dissent or not voting for the party become terrorism?

In the hands of the next Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Chertoff/Feith/etc cabal, this and more is possible.

This memo, combined with the Patriot Act, is worse than the Enabling Act of 1933, and it will remain on the books for other Administrations to use as they wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:22 AM

107. RE: There are laws ...

Your message makes the point I've been raising ... HOW would you go about capturing people who slip across hostile, bordering countries to punish them, beam the up ?

All your stuff about Civil Rights & the Constitution may be true and not that hard to apply if it were dealing with people right here on our soil.

I'm afraid you've simplified something that's far from simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:21 PM

64. "...and then something happens, an attack here or there ?"

My opinion might not mean much, but I've always held that Freedom is, by it's nature, an inherently DANGEROUS proposition. The freedom to leave my house in the morning, and go about my day as I see fit (wether it be work, school, laying on the grass in the park, whatever) carries with it the possibility that I might get hit by a bus. This is a thing I accept as a consequence not only of my own freedom, but also of my fellow Citizens. I accept the danger.

That having been said...

I know I sound like I want my Government to not ever be engaged in any kind of action that keeps me safe, and that makes me sound like a crazy person who listens to Glen Beck. Not so. What I want, expect, and DESERVE form my Government is for that Government to be dynamic and responsive to the balance that always has to be struck between ensuring liberty and protecting the Citizens that empower that government.

While I can only speak for myself, (and not those who, say, live in or near Manhattan) I CHOOSE THE DANGER. I ALSO accept the possibility that I might get outvoted, and that we have a Judicary to determine where the best balance lies. But, despite what that Judicary may or may not decide, I perfer the Moral Integerity that comes with honoring the treatys we have signed in the past, again, even IF that choice may make my life more dangerous. Besides, for me, outwiting the danger posed by life, enemies of the State, or whatever, just feels more appropriate than destroying every precieved threat with the baddest weaponry we can find. Were civilized people, after all, not mindless cave-dwellers...

Just my 2 cents, and responses both supporting and condemming this position are welcome, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:36 PM

24. Well, that's right--if Americans in this country were actively engaged in a terror plot, and could

not reasonably be apprehended, then the constitutional standard of Tennessee v. Garner would apply.


This is not new. That case has been around since 1985.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:29 PM

43. Who decides . . .

Who decides if an American citizen cannot be "Reasonably apprehended" and must be blown to bits without warning? I imagine that would require a Judge's approval, at the very least. Nothing of that sort of Judicial review is implied in the "White Memo" we have been allowed to see. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:55 PM

69. The Executive Branch does. A Judge would defer, citing fugitive status. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:35 AM

87. So . . .

So, we have surrendered our 4'th Amendment rights to, oh let's say the head of the CIA? He's a member of the "Executive Branch," correct? Or maybe we gave them up to the Second Assistant Attorney General in charge of assassinations? Someone like that?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #87)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:00 AM

89. No--but you have no 4th amendment rights if you are a non-custodial enemy combatant. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:13 PM

93. I think the law . . .

I think the law states that everyone has rights. Even suspected terrorists have rights. Or did some Justice Department lackey write a "White Memo" unilaterally overturning that long-standing precedent as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #93)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:58 PM

94. Certainly a non-custodial enemy combatant has rights. Just not under the 4th. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #94)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:27 PM

95. And who has the power . . .

And who has the power to declare a United States citizen (one who has not joined a foreign nation's military and who is not physically anywhere near an active battlefield) a "non-custodial enemy combatant?" That's a life-and-death power which should reside only in our judiciary, or the Constitution is just some old ink-splattered paper, of no consequence whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:56 PM

97. The CIC does. Take it up with the Founders. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #97)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:52 PM

98. Where is that in the Condtitution . . .

The President has the power to order an American citizen's death without warrant, arrest or trial? Where is that in the Constitution? The Constitution was written by the "Founders," wasn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:32 AM

100. Yes. The AUMF of 9/18/2001 authorizes the President to kill Al Qaeda

operatives at will as long as they are non custodial.

American citizenship doesn't make a difference.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:16 PM

103. So, . . .

So, Congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan justifies killing an American citizen in Yemen? Where I come from they have a name for that kind of circular fun and games, but it is a rather rude name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #103)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:13 AM

104. Read the AUMF. It doesn't specify Afghanistan.

in fact the idea that 1 is fighting against only nation states is a fairly antiquated concept of conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:48 AM

105. "Antiquated concept or not, any non-State armed organization . . .

Antiquated concept or not, any non-State, armed and violent organization is by definition a criminal enterprise, a gang, and should be treated as such. One does not make war on criminal gangs. Yes, one confronts and combats them. One does not claim, however, it is a war, bringing with it all the special powers and Constitutional waivers that implies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:12 AM

106. You forget your American history. The Barbary pirates were not a nation state

and our fledgling Republic dealt with them quite handily.

Ironically, you are advocating for fewer checks and balances because what you envision is Executive branch action that does not invoke article 1 powers at all. I refer you to the Youngstown decision regarding unilateral action by the Executive.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #106)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:36 PM

108. I disagree . . .

I disagree, the Barbary pirates controlled territory and functioned within that territory as a self-proclaimed and widely recognized State for many years. Most European powers of the time even paid them tribute as such. We did not recognize them, but neither do we recognize the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea. Would you argue North Korea is not a nation State?

As to your other point: the definition of what constitutes an actual war has not changed, no matter what expedient, weasel words may be used to try and do so, either by this administration or by former ones. The so-called "War on Terror" is a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:12 PM

14. Over 1300 dead Americans since Sandy Hook!

I wish we could find similar outrage for our domestic war on ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:34 PM

50. Massacres perpetrated by domestic right-wing extremists who have been incited to acting out their

hatred by stochastic terrorists must not show up on the radar as worthy of national concern. Hence, those are the risks a right-wing-soused society willingly accepts for the sheer joy of living in that right-wing society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:47 AM

101. Difference


The corpses that now litter Waziristan were killed in our name.

Adam Lanza did not kill anyone in my name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:16 PM

15. From a 60's liberal, I never thought I'd say this ....

Wonder WHY republicans get away with portraying democrats as weak on national defense ? Here we go again getting bogged down in the "nuances" and complexities of issues with no simple answers, but hearing people like Rachel Maddow who I am a huge fan of, arguing in defense against "Americans" being targeted for killing. How is it possible to get these people and bring them to trail ? convicting them in abstentia ? OK, but who goes to handcuff them ? It's not like sending police officers after suspects, these people plot then hide amongst civilians. Unless everyone forgot those "presidential daily briefings" that warned of an immenent attack on American soil where the Bush administration took no actions, what's the Obama administration supposed to do ? There is no margin for error for this man, ANY attack on our soil or even attacks like the incident in Benghazi ( and we see what happened there ) gives rise to the GOP playing the IMPEACHMENT card.

So ... what would YOU do if you were the president and YOU were told that the intel community has active information on people gathering to plot an attack on the United States ? Would YOU feel comfortable parsing over defintions ?

NO, I do not believing that war is the answer, I do not agree that drone warfare is humane, but what's humane about the challenge of protecting this country from people who's goal is killing Americans, sending troops any better ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:36 PM

34. How do you know they deserve to be killed? Since when is a President

the Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Based on what evidence? Intelligence information has been shown to be faulty or even manipulated. That's how we ended up in Iraq, in case you forgot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:15 PM

54. We invaded two countries over this

I am pretty sure that a great many of the dead did nothing to justify their fate. I don't see how these three are more special.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:45 PM

37. The redefinition of the word "imminent" is important here.

By the standard laid out here, ther is no requirement to establish that Americans will be harmed by the actions of the target. Basically this new standard is so fuzzy as to be meaningless. The memo suggests that it would be legal to kill an American who may be a threat, and it seems no proof is required.

This is why we have courts. If the govt can just kill someone because some intel analyst says he may be dangerous someday, we may as well just shitcan the whole judicial system and allow the death penalty for any perceived bad behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:55 PM

60. Dems get called that because they WON WW2 & GOP

wants everyone TO FORGET THAT FACT. I guess psyop worked. Sept. 2001 HAPPENED ON GOPs WATCH-they're weak on defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:34 PM

72. Given that FBI agents were rooming with a couple of the 9/11 hijackers at one point--

--they couldn't have been taken into custody? FBI agent Colleen Rowley asked her superior to apply for a warrant to examine Moussasoui's computer. He refused to forward it. More than a few FBI agents were worried about certain flight students who wanted to learn to take off but not to land. You have to execute them to find out what is going on? Bullshit. We had loads of active information pre-9/11, and refused to act on it. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:16 PM

16. Welcome to our brave new land. You write shit on a memo

and suddenly it's *legal*.

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
Richard M. Nixon

"L'Etat c'est moi"
Louis XIV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:30 PM

20. @Catherina

So just because someone was born in the U.S. should protect them if they engage in active plots to kill you ? Who will you send to capture those people so they can be tried in court ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:37 PM

32. LMAO. Nice avatar. Surprised it's not a Che avatar. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:40 PM

35. Stop It Now! He Is A 60's Liberal BLAH BLAH BLAH See His Other Post

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:34 PM

55. Slap a D after the name to push the most rightwing, extremist agendas

That's all it takes these days but no one can force us to act fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raggaemon (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:57 PM

62. same ones who do 'rendition', seems to work just fine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:52 AM

77. Yet the things we WANT Obama to do he can't because "the President doesn't have that much power"

Funny, huh?

He's clearly got the power when it's a BAD thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:16 PM

17. There is of course some awkwardness in the legal language that is ripe for lambast...

...However on the whole, as someone who has read a number of legal opinions, this memo stands on pretty solid legal grounds IMHO. I really doubt there will ever be a successful legal argument made in the courts against this legal argument. I would also note, that this is not the same thing as the Bush Department of Justice's permitting of torture, which is clearly against a number of US and international legal statutes and treaties. In short, Congress has authorized military force, in this authorization the President retains the authority to carry out military action against members of Al-Qaida and its "associated organizations" (American citizenship does not preclude this determination, these individual decisions are not subject to court approval because the the Courts do not have such authorization, and Congress retains the right to further amend or repeal the AUMF. If George W. Bush and not Barack Obama had made such a determination regarding Anwar Al-Awlaki, my opinion on this matter would be no different. Our public authorities have a compelling interest to protect Americans from terrorist attack. Flame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:32 PM

21. We might be only two posters in this thread that have read the memo.

I wouldn't have had a problem with Bush making the same determination as Obama, either. Anyone who sends PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues is not a "peaceful cleric."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:47 PM

26. I hope others will find the time to read it in full.

There is of course a valid a discussion to be had about whether carrying out this policy is wise strategy. However, attacking a legal argument on a political basis without addressing directly what the document is arguing - the concept of "imminence" has been widely explored in legal doctrine in many facets, IMHO it can be more clearly enunciated as "demonstrable reasonable belief." Moreover, I think in Constitutional terms that the Administration is aware of the likelihood of a legal challenge and has thus to date been reluctant to stake a position prematurely that could be subject to use in Court. I also would note that none of this precludes the oversight function of Congress to both obtain information, by subpoena if necessary, to pass legislation or to impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President is not acting as a dictator, he is acting as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services *and* with the legislative sanction of the Congress, wherein the sovereign will of the American people is invested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:01 PM

28. Greenwald will post, thus saving many from actually having to read what they are outraged over.

You raise an interesting point regarding congressional oversight. Certainly members of Congress can investigate and use their subpoena power. But this is a political hot potato for them. Republicans have to get re elected in 2014. Being soft on Al Qaeda isn't going to do that for them.

There's very little of legal substance to disagree with within the memo. 1 might wonder why the President refused to release it. The more I look at it the more I wonder if this is a calculated release on the part of the administration. I suspect there will be more lawsuits but I think the same problems of jurisdiction standing will toss most of them.
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:09 PM

30. That's my suspicion too - the Courts won't want to touch it.

But you never know. I also agree that the Republicans in Congress don't want to have this fight. It will be up to Senate Democrats to take steps, but I really doubt the would go as far as even proposing to revoke or modify the AUMF. I think the administration is being naturally political and cautious. I think they probably should have just released it sooner - not that it would have mattered to many who are caught up in the "making hay" aspect of the entire debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:26 PM

31. I'm sure we will see some ACLU and CCR litigation, as we should.

But the fundamental problem of standing remains.

The DC Circuit decision in the last round of litigation was quite interesting I'll see if I can pick up the link. I noted below the Greenwald seems to be upset about what he sees an expansion of the term imminence. If that's his most powerful argument then he's lost before he's begun.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:23 PM

42. ellisonz ......For YOU! More Data...if you choose to read it...

(Many of your questions can be answered if you have time to read this....and and from the "hold out," where we were.) ALSO...many others who don't see the revelations in this Memo as upsetting to what we were taught about our Democracy and the "Rule of Law" might find this interview with ACLU Head...very informative. I did..

----------------------


Kill List Exposed: Leaked Obama Memo Shows Assassination of U.S. Citizens "Has No Geographic Limit"


The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. In a secret Justice Department memo, the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States. We’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If you look at the memo ... there’s no geographic line," says Jaffer. "The Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority . They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit."

TRANSCRIPT from ACLU's Jmeel Jaffer speaking with Amy Goodman, HERE:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:57 AM

83. I think there are political, moral, and strategic arguments that can be made against the policy...

...I think there's a legal contest that can me made too. I just don't think it has a chance of winning. When I consider the political, moral, and strategic arguments I see a vastly complex world where the questions and answers are not so simple. I think the geographic limit argument is a simplification - Congress has declared hostilities against Al Qaeda and its allies - these are transnational groups that thrive on mobility and secrecy. I suppose if we want to deal in these sorts of hypothetical arguments we ought to consider all the hypothetical arguments including the one's that concern those who would be affected by another successful mass casualty terrorist attack on the United States and our interests abroad. Don't want to be on the capture/kill list - don't join our enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:28 PM

19. I'm sorry but I'm not concerned over this.

If an American CHOSES to align himself to a militant group that not only murdered over 3000 people but murder women who don't conform to their way of life, then why should I care if the government took him out? And if he goes on TV making threats against the US and don't appear to want to turn himself in then what should we do? If they did carry out another 911 type of attack and it was known that we had the opportunity to have taken him out after those threats were made then I wonder what you would say then? As far as I'm concerned, he is guilty by association. I don't condone all killings but I am not going to lose any sleep that the government killed this guy before he can plan or execute another terrorist attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gholtron (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:34 PM

44. You should be concerned as an American Citizen about Rule of Law...

and here's a link I gave the poster above. Read it..when you have time...and see if you can understand the "other side." It's a transcript so you can read the Q&A...which is interesting.

Here:

Kill List Exposed: Leaked Obama Memo Shows Assassination of U.S. Citizens "Has No Geographic Limit"


The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. In a secret Justice Department memo, the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States. We’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If you look at the memo ... there’s no geographic line," says Jaffer. "The Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority . They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit."

TRANSCRIPT from ACLU's Jmeel Jaffer speaking with Amy Goodman, HERE:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:00 PM

45. It still does not change my mind.

Look Al Qaeda declared WAR on us on September 11, 2001. Everyone and I mean everyone was shocked, in grief, then it turned to anger. EVERYONE was calling for justice. They fired the first shot. Now President Bush received an intelligent memo saying that an imminent attack is underway. He did nothing and you see what that got us. When we declared war on Al Qaeda that means that every member of Al Qaeda is a soldier including Americans that CHOSE to become members can be targeted. And just because they are not a solverent nation with a government domain, does not exempt them from being the enemy or targeted. This is no different that if we declared war on a solverent nation. And if they hide in a country that the government is refusing or is incapable to capture them, then that is our battle field. Since 911 we have witnessed horrible attacks on US military bases, and consulates around the world. When you are in war, then we don't ask the justice department if we can shoot the enemy. I agree that the method of killing is ugly but what other choice do we have? These Americans that were targeted, CHOSE to align themselves with that group. Both men were on TV issuing THREATS against this country. So with that said, here are a few links of my own.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/report-al-qaeda-threats-us-extremist-leader/story?id=9780572

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13296443

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gholtron (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:19 PM

47. If you read it...then I would expect to see your "personal" counter

of ACLU's revelations of what this means to American Citizens who have friends, relatives or other connections Abroad... And, what it might mean to you ...in your own hometown when you might belong to a "group" that comes under some kind of surveillance for whatever reason...because one member of the group was found to have some problem with the Government in his e-mails, FaceBook Posts or whatever group he belonged to ...maybe even on a Gaming Site, Porn Site, Sports Site or any other Online or Community or Religious related activities. Wherever you are you are monitored these days and if you happen to be amonst a targeted group because one or more members just happen to have some interaction with some distant association with some group designated on the USA WATCH LIST...then YOU and all your associations come under the umbrella of "Possible Terrorists," if even only one person is considered suspect and monitored for phone or internet.

This is how far this goes. And, that's only the "White Paper" leak of the legal justification that was used to target US Citizens here and abroad. We haven't seen what the Obama Administration is REALLY DOING...because they won't release it. This "White Paper Memo" was Legal Justification leaked to "Newsweek"....for some purpose, which remains to be seen but, it was enough of a concern that someone in our Congress thought it important enough to be a LEAKER to get it out there to the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #47)


Response to KoKo (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:47 PM

74. This is what the Constitution says about Treason

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

These Americans commited Treason.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/well-known-homegrown-terrorists/story-fnd134gw-1226571234816

ADAM GADAHN

Born Adam Pearlman in Oregon, Gadahn converted to Islam in 1995 and moved to Pakistan, where he joined al-Qaida as a propagandist. Using the name "Azzam the American,'' he appeared in numerous al-Qaida videos, denouncing US moves in Afghanistan and elsewhere and threatening attacks on Western interests abroad. US authorities filed treason charges against him in 2006 and have offered a $US1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. Despite rumors he had been killed or captured, Gadahn appeared in a video last September marking the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.



This is a Russ Feingold interview who sat on the intelligents committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/russ-feingold-anwar-al-awlaki_n_1291593.html

so it looks like the executive branch is talking to the legislative branch. Hummmm. Why wasn't this put out there?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gholtron (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:48 AM

92. You seem to ignore the "convicted" and "open court" parts

Treason is a criminal charge , just like jaywalking or conspiracy to commit murder, and subject, under the constitution, to due process in an open court, not a secret tribunal.

This leaked white paper shows that Obama, like Bush before him, continues to take a leak on the only white paper that matters, the Constitution.


THIS, among other reasons, is why I emigrated from the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gholtron (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:29 PM

48. Evidence they chose to align with anyone? This isn't one person but rather policy.

What is the point of a justice system if there doesn't have to be any evidence presented nor even charges filed?

All it takes to be disappeared or murdered is "we/I think this person may potentially pose a possible threat and we have reason to believe they may possible belong to a group aligned with terrorists".

It doesn't matter what you lose sleep over on an individual basis, this process operates outside justice. Let us assume that in the case of the cleric this is cut and dry, we have video and whatnot, how does this work when there are no youtube videos, no declaration of membership in Al Queda, and really no knowledge of who was taken out?

How are you evading dealing with the broad doctrine in your own mind and in the discussion by focusing on one case when the doctrine is not limited to the case?

Hell, even if the Executive was limited to the same application, there is no oversight to make sure the lines are stood by.

I don't get supporting such unbounded and unchecked authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:36 PM

65. I disagree

They were members of Al Qaeda. An enemy of the United States. Google them. These killings are an act of war. If they were just Americans with no ties to Al Qaeda then I would lead the charge demanding Obama's impeachment. So how do you Bring them to justice? Get back to me on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:18 PM

70. You want evidence Well

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/well-known-homegrown-terrorists/story-fnd134gw-1226571234816
Here is an excerp from this article.

ADAM GADAHN

Born Adam Pearlman in Oregon, Gadahn converted to Islam in 1995 and moved to Pakistan, where he joined al-Qaida as a propagandist. Using the name "Azzam the American,'' he appeared in numerous al-Qaida videos, denouncing US moves in Afghanistan and elsewhere and threatening attacks on Western interests abroad. US authorities filed treason charges against him in 2006 and have offered a $US1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. Despite rumors he had been killed or captured, Gadahn appeared in a video last September marking the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Satitified or do you want more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gholtron (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:43 PM

102. The list is a secret, you have no evidence. The process is secret and unsupervised, you have no

evidence.

You throw an example but cannot verify a damn thing. You don't know if Joe Blow or Jane Smith are innocent but targeted. You sure as hell don't know who may be targeted in the future in error or as the result of abuse.

You spin is amoral idiocy based on religious like faith in the false exceptionalisim of our system and in a politician that already has proven shady in a very similar area by declaring anyone we kill as a combatant by the virtue of being male and between mid teens and middle age.

The truth is the first casualty of war, especially when the war is a lie.

Yeah, bring more evidence except by definition none is available unless the Executive decides to take a victory lap, the less savory shit just goes classified or into a black hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:33 PM

22. Won't someone PLEASE think of the terrorists!

yawn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sagat (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:11 PM

96. Do you mean . . .

Do you mean the uncharged, untried, unconvicted people who are suspected of being terrorists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:34 PM

23. Somehow this MUST be the fault of the Republicans in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:46 PM

25. 1. The Rude Pundit can call the police on his neighbor if he feels that they are a threat

The police can't get to a threat in a lawless area of Pakistan.

2. Using a drone in France would be unnecessary. The French government would be happy to round up an al-Qaeda operative.

3. Al-Qaeda or Taliban members are threats by their very membership to those groups. These guys aren't out to bake cookies. Terror is their raison d'ętre.

4. It would seem to be a good idea not to associate with members of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen. Also, stay away from spicy pork at Filipino restaurants.

5. Tennessee v. Garner holds that law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Being involved with al-Qaeda certainly qualifies as probably cause.

6. We are in a state of military conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Killing enemy combatants usually isn't considered assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:50 PM

27. Glenn Greenwald, "Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition"

The memo claims that the president's assassination power applies to a senior al-Qaida member who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". That is designed to convince citizens to accept this power by leading them to believe it's similar to common and familiar domestic uses of lethal force on US soil: if, for instance, an armed criminal is in the process of robbing a bank or is about to shoot hostages, then the "imminence" of the threat he poses justifies the use of lethal force against him by the police.

But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:08 PM

29. If that's what Greenwald is decrying, the he knows he doesn't have a legal

leg to stand on.

Telling UK readers that the architect of the British Airways bomb plot isn't an imminent threat is ironic in ways that I'm sure Stephen Timms would appreciate.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:30 PM

33. That was a very good read. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:46 PM

38. This should be an OP. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:41 PM

36. Should we howl in anger at what the FBI did in Alabama?


They went in and killed a guy holding a kid at gun point because of the "threat" that he might kill the kid.

Sometimes lethal force is justified. I consider lethal force against traitors whom we can not capture a justified use. Which is why I avoid these threads. But I just thought I'd point out that the FBI rescue of that hostage yesterday was pretty much the same damned thing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:38 PM

52. You cannot be a fugitive beyond justice when you aren't indicted or charged

That threat to that child was real and present, I have no clue why it would even be mentioned here in context when the doctrine states that the possibility of the potential of a threat will work. There doesn't have to be any plot and nor any evidence of connection.

I don't get the logic nor do I get what the boundaries really are and who verifies they are abided by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:47 PM

39. Another Sad and Disgusted K&R n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:19 PM

40. I know...it's another sad and disgusted k&R here, too....

BEYONCE RULES....Human Rights...not so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:36 PM

51. +1 And another...and another...and another...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:35 PM

56. Another disgusted and angry K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:15 PM

46. Other than those right-wingy thingys, I love virtually everything our President has

done. Conversely, I don't like any right-wingy thingy done or planned by anyone at any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:44 PM

53. The Right's fear of governmental tyranny seems justified at the moment.

If this can't be interpreted as some form of incipient tyranny, what would it take?

On the other hand, I suspect the Obama administration has good intentions, and that they only mean to use this to fight true terror suspects, but that involves too much faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:46 PM

58. What kind of asshole thinks this is ok???

From the top of government to the dregs of DU, what American thinks this is a good idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #58)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:00 AM

75. "What kind of asshole thinks this is ok???"

Once I logged out, it was pretty easy to tell...

Edit to add: The apparatchik is in full crisis mode tonight. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:39 PM

66. Hey, he's got a Nobel Peace Prize. It's all good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:44 PM

68. I voted for President Obama twice and gave his 2012 campaign money....

but this is WRONG. It would be horribly wrong under a Republican/Green/Socialist/Communist/Libertarian/etc president and it's wrong now.

The memo needs to be retracted immediately, and the entire drone program reviewed for legality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #68)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:36 AM

91. I'm with you on that

of course the majority and a complicent media apparatus will just look the other way, covering their ears and singing "la, la, la, la,...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:44 PM

73. The difficulty

is standing up for what is right even when those in the wrong are on your 'team'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:16 AM

76. k/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:56 AM

78. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:10 AM

79. well I be "drone'd "...

When my fellow union brothers and sisters (and I) occupied the rotunda in Lansing, the state cops were pretty cool; the SWAT guys with the grenade launchers were another story. They looked like they could not wait to open fire.
I cannot believe how naive some people are about the good intentions of those in power. Keep going along with this and you will be just like those that witnessed the rise of the nazis.
Maybe, one day, a drone will kill me at a Union/terrorist protest.
About half of you would turn a blind eye ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:40 AM

80. I'm guessing, I'm hoping

that Obama is forcing the GOP's hand to make this unwarranted killing of US citizens anywhere completely illegal, and I think Obama is willing to force their hand by killing a few key GOP personnel, based on their treasonous actions, which is not hard to see. Once this glaring action is taken, everyone, the GOP and the democrats will enact new laws to limit the president from doing it ever again, and thus, Obama will finally close this stupid loophole that was created by the Bush Administration.

At least that's my hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:58 AM

84. "imminent threat". Didn't W use that phrase a lot? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:03 AM

88. Funny how the folks who protested this long ago

... were lambasted and ridiculed as overly-paranoid haters of the President and crypto-Republicans. Frankly, now that it has been brought to everyone's attention, I'm too tired to engage in another round of breast-beating.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:49 PM

99. Says who?

Bush lied us into the war. But as to the conduct of the war, the military is still the same under Bush or any other president. Who protested Bush doing the exact same goddamned things? We protested being in the war in the first place. One in it, the details are the same.

So what if there had never been any torture? Then it was OK to lie us into the war? Issues get mixed up here. We are still in these wars and the President is the CIC whether we think we should still be there or not.

And just what is the bullshit about US citizens? If they can be tried, so can the aliens - human rights are human rights, they do not descend on someone solely due to being born on certain soil or descended of certain other persons - the distinction about the citizens to me proves the insincerity - or, there is sincerity only when the same acts are condemned if directed at non US citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:25 PM

109. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread