HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 'Judge, Jury And Executio...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:16 PM

'Judge, Jury And Executioner': Legal Experts Fear Implications Of White House Drone Memo - MSNBC

'Judge, jury and executioner': Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
1/5/13

<snip>

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”

The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.

“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.

<snip>

More: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite


57 replies, 2734 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 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Judge, Jury And Executioner': Legal Experts Fear Implications Of White House Drone Memo - MSNBC (Original post)
WillyT Feb 2013 OP
WillyT Feb 2013 #1
MadHound Feb 2013 #2
WillyT Feb 2013 #3
KoKo Feb 2013 #4
MadHound Feb 2013 #5
jsr Feb 2013 #11
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #30
WillyT Feb 2013 #31
DearAbby Feb 2013 #6
MadHound Feb 2013 #7
WillyT Feb 2013 #8
treestar Feb 2013 #51
WillyT Feb 2013 #52
treestar Feb 2013 #53
WillyT Feb 2013 #54
DearAbby Feb 2013 #10
MadHound Feb 2013 #44
tblue Feb 2013 #40
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #9
PennsylvaniaMatt Feb 2013 #25
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #32
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #13
DearAbby Feb 2013 #15
tblue Feb 2013 #43
WillyT Feb 2013 #45
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #46
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #57
tblue Feb 2013 #42
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #55
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #12
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #14
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #18
WillyT Feb 2013 #19
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #20
WillyT Feb 2013 #21
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #24
WillyT Feb 2013 #26
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #34
WillyT Feb 2013 #37
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #48
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #33
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #47
WillyT Feb 2013 #16
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #17
woo me with science Feb 2013 #36
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #41
FarCenter Feb 2013 #22
WillyT Feb 2013 #23
FarCenter Feb 2013 #27
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #28
FarCenter Feb 2013 #35
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #38
KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #29
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #39
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #49
WillyT Feb 2013 #50
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #56

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:29 PM

1. Kick !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:32 PM

2. But hey, there is a D behind his name,

 

Which means it's all good, right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WillyT (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:35 PM

4. OOP's!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:43 PM

5. Wow, for a Democrat who started out as an Eisenhower Republican,

 

Obama is quickly moving to the right of Ike. Even Ike wouldn't touch Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:57 PM

11. l admire his irrepressible and constant urge to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:23 PM

30. why is the party of FDR trying to undo his legacy?

it's a central defining element of the Democratic Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KakistocracyHater (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:25 PM

31. Excellent Question !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:44 PM

6. defferent perspective

Obama has a duty to defend the republic and the constitution against ALL ENEMIES foreign or Domestic.

I imagine Alex Jones heavily armed, then I think about this rhetoric about having to have equal access to the same fire power as our US Military and law enforcement...Then I think about ignorant preppers. The run to purchase anything Guns. over 300 million of them and counting....Then I think of the Propaganda spewed by Fox all these years, how Obama is a Communist, socialist, Marxist, Brown Hitler...whip their asses into frenzied fear, then add as a kicker...he wants to confiscate your guns..

Sit back and watch what happens...also, answer this, What is the difference between a "Militia" and a terrorist group?

Some reason I am comforted that Obama is taking his oath literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:50 PM

7. What about his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?

 

That just got tossed into the garbage heap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:52 PM

8. "It's Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper", Don'tcha Know ???



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:44 PM

51. Well what about the part about protecting the Republic?

And why are US citizens special when it comes to that - why shouldn't the aliens also get those rights. If it's possible for the citizens, it is possible for the aliens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:49 PM

52. You Tell Me...

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


Link: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #52)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:52 PM

53. So then you are equally outraged regarding aliens killed by the same method

How is it giving up freedom for safety when it is happening abroad? That refers to giving up rights here in the US, not the conduct of wars. It would be giving up the country itself in the name of liberty - there's some point where even liberals think we get to defend ourselves.

Unless you think these people are genuinely not dangerous and truly innocent of wanting to do more 911s here and helping out with that from abroad. We killed bin Laden without trial, so that was giving up liberty for safety?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:01 PM

54. I Think... Our System Has Worked Pretty Well For OVER 200 Years...

Why change it?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:57 PM

10. I do understand and agree with you...but there is that other perspective naggin at me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:38 PM

44. So because of your fear of gun nuts and preppers and RW whackos,

 

You are willing to let the drones fly and the extrajudicial killings to commence forthwith?

You know what Franklin said about those valuing safety over liberty don't you? It applies here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:08 PM

40. The oath is to defend the Constitution, not the US

Obama swore to God he would defend the Constitution. Would be nice if he did that and only that.

Here it is:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:56 PM

9. Except this leak is only going to ramp up the paranoia factor amongst these groups exponentially

If they already believe the government is out to get them, this memo only makes things worse.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:07 PM

25. Exactly....

As I pointed out in another thread, it was CONGRESS who, almost unanimously, gave President Bush some of this authority in 2001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PennsylvaniaMatt (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:26 PM

32. since Binny's dead & all those #1s, doesn't that mean

that expired? ALL Sept 11 leaders ARE DEAD. Thusly, that pos paper should be outdated, now illegal, no longer applicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:59 PM

13. His OATH is SOLELY to defend the Constitution, NOT "the republic."

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:03 PM

15. And his duties as CIC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:12 PM

43. Ignore the Constitution?

I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:43 PM

45. The CIC Operates Under The Constitution... That's Why We Don't Have Juntas...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta

Or at least... we didn't used to.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:05 AM

46. Pertain ONLY to the military, a group to which I do not belong; do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:25 PM

57. I have never been part of the US military.

My husband is now a civilian. The UCMJ does not apply to either of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:11 PM

42. The oath does not say 'defend the Republic'

Doesn't say it. Does not say it. Does. Not. Say. It. It says:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:19 PM

55. So, just asking here

Are you saying.. you would like to see the power expanded from American citizens in foreign countries to American citizens inside the USA?

I do not want to claim something you did not say or mean, but last I heard, Alex Jones, 'preppers' and Fox were all on US soil.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:58 PM

12. Did the so-called "legal experts" demonstrate the same "grave reservations" when the.....

....Reagan Administration started the practice of rendition back in the 1980s? Or when W accelerated the practice following 9/11?

It was a "very, very dangerous thing" those presidents did, too. Where was the outrage then?

Just curious, Willy, but didn't you get enough of a response from your post on this subject yesterday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:00 PM

14. WTH cares? It is outrageous NOW, and speaking NOW counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:06 PM

18. Ohhhh....so NOW you want to make a big deal?? Where were YOU when this was being.....

....initiated back in the 1980s and expanded beyond any reasonable need under W??

Who the hell cares?? I do, and so should you!

Speaking now only counts if you like being WAY LATE TO THE F'ING TABLE!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:10 PM

19. Um... W, Was Recovering From His Cocaine Habit In The 80's... Or Not...

You might be confusing W, with Reagan.

Either way, I marched and protested BOTH of those bastards.

Thanks for playing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:45 PM

20. You're not even on the field on this subject, much less "playing"...

...who do you think was pulling the strings behind Reagan? It was Poppy Bush, a long-term CIA operative and later Director of that agency, who was Reagan's VP for 8 years, and then followed that up with a single term as president for 4 more years. He was essentially the president for ALL 12 years! Wake the hell up!

In 1984 and 1986, during a wave of terrorist attacks, Congress passed laws making air piracy and attacks on Americans abroad federal crimes. Ronald Reagan added teeth to these laws by signing a secret covert-action directive in 1986 that authorized the CIA to kidnap, anywhere abroad, foreigners wanted for terrorism. A new word entered the dictionary of U.S. foreign relations: rendition.

In September 1987, during the Reagan administration, the United States executed an extraordinary rendition, code named Goldenrod, in a joint FBI-CIA operation. Fawaz Yunis, who was wanted in the U.S. courts for his role in the hijacking of a Jordanian airliner that had American citizens on board, was lured onto a boat off the coast of Cyprus and taken to international waters, where he was arrested.

Something I failed to mention earlier because I didn't want certain DU heads to explode, the American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary rendition was further developed during the Clinton administration by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda.

Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. The policy later expanded under W after the 9/11 attacks, and got much worse in terms of the treatment of the detainees. I won't bore you with the details of what happened under W, because you should already know.

And now you want to pitch a fit about a policy that President Obama inherited? LOL. What will you find to complain about next? The drapes in the Oval Office?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:53 PM

21. No No No... Laura Wore The Drapes...

Or maybe it was GW...



And please do not lecture me on supporting this country and it's founding ideals...

I've been more loyal to the ideals of this country than most people who've sworn oaths to their offices... and... to the United States.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:03 PM

24. Oh, please. Don't start with that tired old bs about "being more loyal" than others....

....you don't know anything about me or the backgrounds of half the people on this board.

Get off your sanctimonious horse and give it a rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:10 PM

26. My Horse Is Named Sanctuary... And From What I've Read Of Your Posts... High Horse...

is highly ironic.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

34. LOL. More crap from the Obama-hater....

...admit it, that's what this is all about, isn't it?

You personally can't stand the President, can you? What percentage of your posts complain about the President, his current/future agenda, or what he's accomplished to date? 50%? 60%? Or maybe 70%?

Here's the bottom line on this thread....you tried to stick the President with the practice of attacking Americans or anyone else overseas as if he was the originator of the practice. I told you very clearly that he wasn't the originator of the practice which actually started under Reagan almost 30 years ago. You responded with what, exactly? Weak attempts at personal attacks? Puffery of your own loyalty to the US?

Game. Set. Match.

Move along folks, nothing left to see here.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:49 PM

37. I Believe In This Country... The Constituton... And The Progress We've Made Since 1776/1787...

DO YOU ???

The Constitution... and this country...

Are WAY more important than any one politician.

But you'd have made a good LOYALIST, back in 1776.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:12 AM

48. I'm fully aware of ALL of this (including the Bush/Hinckley/bin Laden nexus). Is there some reason

you are taking offense that people here are enraged that Obama, an ostensibly Democratic President in spirit as well as name, is CONTINUING AND ADVANCING SUCH BUSHIAN TACTICS?

We cannot go back to the past, in case you haven't noticed (which was my original point0; but you are writing AS IF WE SHOULD BE QUIET NOW!

Here is your argument: "I didn't notice if you protested Bush, so you must not have, or at least you were ineffectual, so therefore you better not protest NOW, by God, with Obama in charge!"

Doesn't work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:28 PM

33. so you're condemning those born IN the 80s, 90s etc?

for not speaking out? this is to "olddem"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:07 AM

47. I mean, the past is the past. BTW: I marched in NYC twice pre-Iraq; where were YOU?

I protested at Bush, at Cheney, and at McCain campaign stops.

See how one does not take kindly to such assumptive questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:03 PM

16. This Is A DEMOCRAT Doing It This Time...

Reagan and GW were Republicans...

We expect THEM to pull shit like this.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:04 PM

17. There are a few so-called DU "legal experts" who believe Obama's memo is just peachy keen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:42 PM

36. Ah, the predictable bid to circle the wagons

out of party loyalty and hatred.

This totalitarian power grab should outrage ALL Americans. When will we stop taking the partisan bait to excuse the inexcusable?

When will we have had enough, that we stand up together, as Americans, regardless of party, to oppose this shit?

When?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:11 PM

41. There was massive condemnation of W on DU in regards to rendition...

And I was a very active participant against the Reagan Admins shenanigans as were most any Democrat that I knew.

There was plenty of outrage and protests and people jailed.

What were you doing?


I was also an active participant against Bush One's invasion of Iraq. A despicable turkey shoot that led to sanctions championed and continued during the Clinton (500,000 children dead was worth it) regime. Every country we meddle with... supplying arms, "advisors", sanctioning, bombing, droning... becomes a nightmare for the people who live there. We do not spread democracy. We spread disaster capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:54 PM

22. It doesn't seem particularly novel -- pirates were killed if they couldn't be captured & executed

The Barbary Pirates of North Africa were suppressed early in the '19th Century in a series of naval actions.

From 1815 through the early 1820s, pirate operating in the Carribean were suppressed by the Navy. Again, sometimes they were engaged and killed and sometimes they were captured, tried under Admiralty Law, and executed.

While the Barbary Pirates were not citizens, some of the pirates in the Carribean were US citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:59 PM

23. You Make A Great Point There... In 1815... There Were Several States In The U.S. That...

allowed you to own fellow human beings... you know... SLAVES...

Things change over time... no ???

Just depends on which direction you want to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:15 PM

27. But if things have not been changed, they are as they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:16 PM

28. But..but..trials before executions are so awkward and potentially embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:31 PM

35. Which court would have jurisdiction to conduct a trial?

A US citizen outside of the US borders is generally beyond the jurisdiction of the US courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:51 PM

38. You're kidding, right?

Ever heard of extradition, or conspiracy?

The US criminal justice system has the amazing ability to reach you just about anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:21 PM

29. don't worry, it sets international precedent, so Russia,

China, etc will eventually do it too. They VERY quickly rebranded Tibetans "illegal enemy combatants" & Chechnyans (sp?) the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:00 PM

39. STUNNED anyone who would condemn this if Bush did it, isn't condemning it when Obama does it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:30 PM

49. This story was at the top of Canadian news this morning

And I agree about the significance of this. It's HUGE.

Look, I know Obama is not going to abuse this. But who knows what nutcase will win the presidency some day. This will become precedent law and accepted by lawmakers and the public as reasonable policy.

Can you imagine if some warhawk Neocon or fundie Xtian ever attained power as POTUS? Here's a clue.... they won't hesitate to EXPAND on these new-found powers.

And you won't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:35 PM

50. Two Thing... Great News... And, EXACTLY !!!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:22 PM

56. Hott Fuzz; Judge Judy and Executioner

Sorry, can't resist.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread