HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » EXCLUSIVE: Justice Depart...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:38 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans

Source: NBC News

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

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

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Read more: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans

183 replies, 14160 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 183 replies Author Time Post
Reply EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans (Original post)
Hissyspit Feb 2013 OP
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #1
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #73
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #92
Waitwhat Feb 2013 #94
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #131
pkdu Feb 2013 #152
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #159
dkf Feb 2013 #2
TheProgressive Feb 2013 #6
another_liberal Feb 2013 #8
arely staircase Feb 2013 #174
another_liberal Feb 2013 #175
arely staircase Feb 2013 #176
another_liberal Feb 2013 #177
arely staircase Feb 2013 #178
another_liberal Feb 2013 #179
arely staircase Feb 2013 #180
another_liberal Feb 2013 #181
arely staircase Feb 2013 #182
another_liberal Feb 2013 #183
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #12
dkf Feb 2013 #13
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #74
Th1onein Feb 2013 #91
msanthrope Feb 2013 #98
Th1onein Feb 2013 #132
msanthrope Feb 2013 #138
Th1onein Feb 2013 #151
Zedadiah Feb 2013 #168
Th1onein Feb 2013 #171
amandabeech Feb 2013 #135
dkf Feb 2013 #136
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #16
Scuba Feb 2013 #3
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #31
Zedadiah Feb 2013 #169
another_liberal Feb 2013 #4
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #23
dgibby Feb 2013 #5
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #9
jeff47 Feb 2013 #20
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #22
dgibby Feb 2013 #49
jeff47 Feb 2013 #118
jeff47 Feb 2013 #117
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #146
jeff47 Feb 2013 #153
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #155
jeff47 Feb 2013 #156
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #158
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #35
msanthrope Feb 2013 #99
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #120
msanthrope Feb 2013 #125
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #127
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #128
msanthrope Feb 2013 #140
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #161
msanthrope Feb 2013 #165
jeff47 Feb 2013 #113
Bo Didley Feb 2013 #47
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #48
jeff47 Feb 2013 #115
Bo Didley Feb 2013 #45
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #46
snooper2 Feb 2013 #77
woo me with science Feb 2013 #53
Octafish Feb 2013 #7
DeSwiss Feb 2013 #10
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #11
mbperrin Feb 2013 #14
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #33
msanthrope Feb 2013 #44
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #122
msanthrope Feb 2013 #124
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #126
Xithras Feb 2013 #72
msanthrope Feb 2013 #96
Xithras Feb 2013 #107
msanthrope Feb 2013 #110
Xithras Feb 2013 #111
msanthrope Feb 2013 #112
Xithras Feb 2013 #133
amandabeech Feb 2013 #134
msanthrope Feb 2013 #137
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #123
onpatrol98 Feb 2013 #157
triplepoint Feb 2013 #17
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #18
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #19
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #21
Socal31 Feb 2013 #25
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #26
Socal31 Feb 2013 #28
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #29
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #39
msanthrope Feb 2013 #42
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #54
msanthrope Feb 2013 #55
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #56
msanthrope Feb 2013 #97
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #102
msanthrope Feb 2013 #106
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #114
msanthrope Feb 2013 #116
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #119
msanthrope Feb 2013 #121
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #129
msanthrope Feb 2013 #139
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #141
msanthrope Feb 2013 #142
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #143
msanthrope Feb 2013 #144
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #145
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #62
msanthrope Feb 2013 #69
woo me with science Feb 2013 #51
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #58
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #60
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #64
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #66
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #68
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #71
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #75
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #79
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #81
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #84
choie Feb 2013 #83
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #89
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #101
choie Feb 2013 #80
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #82
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #147
Xithras Feb 2013 #67
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #70
Xithras Feb 2013 #78
choie Feb 2013 #85
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #103
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #148
Melinda Feb 2013 #162
Rex Feb 2013 #166
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #170
Rex Feb 2013 #172
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #173
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #24
loudsue Feb 2013 #27
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #30
joelz Feb 2013 #32
amandabeech Feb 2013 #57
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #63
PufPuf23 Feb 2013 #34
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #36
woo me with science Feb 2013 #59
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #100
snot Feb 2013 #37
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #149
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #38
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #40
marmar Feb 2013 #41
msanthrope Feb 2013 #43
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2013 #50
woo me with science Feb 2013 #52
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #61
lovuian Feb 2013 #65
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #76
Pryderi Feb 2013 #86
NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #90
woo me with science Feb 2013 #104
Melinda Feb 2013 #163
mike_c Feb 2013 #87
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #150
U4ikLefty Feb 2013 #88
Waitwhat Feb 2013 #93
Recursion Feb 2013 #95
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 #105
Waitwhat Feb 2013 #109
Wait Wut Feb 2013 #130
Waitwhat Feb 2013 #154
coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #108
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #160
Melinda Feb 2013 #164
Nihil Feb 2013 #167

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:42 PM

1. Focusing On The NRA - More Guns Won't Help Americans Against A Drone Strike

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:20 PM

73. Please state one case when drones have been used against American citizens on US soil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:52 PM

92. To kill? Not just yet, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

They're already being used to patrol the US / Canadian border and are being requested for the Mexican border as well (regarding the "drug war", so expect deaths shortly).

US sheriffs are lining up to get drones so again, it's just a matter of time before a fatality (and more).

City of Seattle PD establishing policies regarding use of drones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525403

Mind you, the city of Seattle happily doused crowds of Occupiers with pepper spray, including 84-year-old Dorli Rainey, from whom comes my autosignature quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/dorli-rainey-keith-olbermann-pepper-spray_n_1099198.html


and

Drones cleared for domestic use across the US

Published: 29 November, 2011, 21:47

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-border-patrol-489/

And this is what is unclassified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:00 PM

94. What will stop it now?

 

This white paper allows it. Why do you think it will not happen? Because there is a "D" after the current CIC? Yeh, sure. I guess all Obama needs to say is "trust me. I'm a politician with a " D" after my name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:55 PM

131. With The Recent Knowledge That Any American Can Be So Targeted, It Is Only A Matter Of Time

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:19 AM

152. On the news tonight...against the wacko survivalist kidnapper...

No , munitions weren't fired , but drones were used

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:21 AM

159. Can't. It's a secret strike. Like a secret prison. Secret. Shhhhh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:43 PM

2. No need to worry. The government would never attack an American citizen with its firepower.

 

Only a lunatic would think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:53 PM

6. You mean, except for the American named Anwar al-Awlaki?





WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:00 PM

8. Or, more generally . . .

Or, more generally, any uppity Muslim, his family, his friends and his neighbors living too close. With the possible addition of completely unrelated individuals whose home may be mistaken for that of said uppity Muslim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:58 PM

174. yeah, that's all he was, a guy with some disagreeable points of view

not in any way an armed terrorist actively trying to kill american civilians from a remote location. the guy joined a military organization that had in word and deed declared and war on the US, specifically targeting civilian air travelers.

that drone that put a missile up his ass should get a promotion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #174)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:15 PM

175. He was "suspected" . . .

He was "suspected" of being and doing what you suggest. Was he ever charged with a crime? Was a warrant for his arrest ever issued? Was he ever brought to trial? Was he given the chance to mount a defense? What part of our Constitution gives the President authority to skip those steps in regard to taking the life of an American citizen? Would you agree to be treated in the same thoroughly unconstitutional manner by some future President?

Hmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #175)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:55 PM

176. apart from violating any criminal statute

he was a fighting member of a belligerent enemy military. neither side of the conflict in which he chose to engage has been shy about stating its intentions to kill the other. he chose to go to war against his own country and died doing so. had he chosen to surrender he should have been given a trial for treason. but he made a different choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #176)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:58 PM

177. A, "belligerent enemy military," really?

Which foreign country's military did he join? More like a criminal gang, maybe. And, more importantly, what actual hostile action has it been proven he took against the United States? He was suspected of a number of things, perhaps, but that is not justification for taking the life of an American citizen, not even close.

My advice is don't believe everything you're told, especially when it comes from the Pentagon in full CYA mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #177)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:03 PM

178. al quaeda is not a military organization?

do you believe only nation states conduct military operations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #178)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:06 AM

179. "Al Qaeda" is not . . .

"Al Qaeda" is a not a State with a military. It is an armed criminal organization, a gang. It should have been treated like one from the beginning. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #179)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:58 PM

180. so what the US Marshalls should have gone to Tora Bora and served warrants?

how would that work as a practical matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #180)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:38 PM

181. Those individuals had actively taken up arms . . .

Those individuals had taken up arms against the United States and were actively fighting us on the battlefield, that is very different from an inoffensive sixteen-year-old American citizen who just happens to be the son of someone we strongly dislike.

A police officer is allowed, even expected to return fire, but he cannot sneak up on someone and shoot him dead without warrant or warning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #181)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:49 PM

182. that is reasonable and point taken about civilian casualties

but I wold put Al-Awlaki in the category of actively taking up arms against us on a battlefield. He was not on a front line battlefield like those at Tora Bora, but neither were Japanese or German operational HQ removed from the WWII front lines. I believe Al Awlaki and others are analogous to that. To be clear, I haven't reached a conclusions about the specifics of the president's executive order - mainly because I don't know them, and therefore have to lean toward those who demand more transparency and checks and balances, but still leaning supportive of operations like that against Mr. Awlaki.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #182)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:51 PM

183. Fair enough . . .

Fair enough, we have yet to see the full White Paper.

I would prefer, however, that the President end this practice of remote, targeted killings at once. I strongly feel it will otherwise be a terrible stain on his legacy, at the very least. He has made a mistake in allowing himself to be convinced by men like Brennan that it is a legal and just tactic. It is neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:12 PM

12. Well they sure have tortured some. I guess you can classify me as a lunatic. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:15 PM

13. Should have added the sarcasm thingy.

 

I'm kind of making fun of those who think the government can never get out of hand.

Nothing is impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:17 PM

15. Sorry. I should have seen that. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

74. When it comes to Al Qaeda operatives/seditious "Americans" making war on us while

based in foreign lands, I am kind of in favor of the government getting "out of hand".

Don't tell me you think Obama did a bad thing by killing Osama bin Ladin?

I guess you do. You hate everything about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:26 PM

91. kestrel, not to get too technical, but I don't think Osama has been alive for a long, long time.

I think he died before, or during, the Bush administration. I've never believed he was responsible for 911, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #91)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:21 PM

98. You think the Obama administration faked Osama's death? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:00 PM

132. I really don't know. Maybe they killed someone they THOUGHT was Osama.

But I don't think OBL has been alive for a while. A long while. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think that Mossad and the CIA staged 911 under George W. Bush's watch and that Georgie boy knew about it, let it happen on purpose (if he did not participate, in fact), because he wanted his war on Iraq.

On edit: Before anyone goes all militant on me, I don't CARE if Obama killed Osama or not. (And if you believe everything your government tells you, then you are an idiot.) It doesn't matter to me who killed OBL. I am glad that Obama got credit for it, because he's a better president than any Republican could ever be. BUT, if OBL WAS alive when we were supposed to have killed him, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial. I think that everyone deserves their day in court, whether they are Americans, or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #132)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:47 PM

138. Not militant...I'd have to stop laughing, first. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #138)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:17 AM

151. That was real nice. Thanks.

A lot of people think tha same thing. Whether you agree or not.

I'm not an Obama basher, but I'm not an idiot, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #151)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:16 AM

168. Look who is now in control of the secrets

Simple fact, if 9-11 was an inside job, the current administration is now complicit in the cover up.

Ever heard of Occams Razor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zedadiah (Reply #168)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:23 PM

171. Yes, I have heard of Occams Razor.

But, let's look at the history: Obama didn't prosecute Bush and his cronies for torture. Same thing with the bankers. And, NOW, he's giving rationalizations for using drones to kill American citizens.

Ever heard of the saying, "If it quacks like a duck........."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:39 PM

135. Americans are protected by the Constitution and the Amendments thereto against

action by the federal (and state) governments even while such Americans are outside the country.

The Fifth Amendment requires due process, in criminal cases trial by jury, and the Fourth Amendment precludes unreasonable seizures, including that of the person.

The White Paper argues that one high level federal governmental official can make the determination that a U.S. citizen living abroad outside combat areas is affiliated with AQ and is an imminent threat and may be killed. One official. Just one. There would be no impartial judge or a jury of one's peers. Just an official. No appeals. Just death.

What if that one official were Dick Cheney? Would he be allowed to go after his enemies? I seem to recall that you are old enough (like me) to remember something about Richard Nixon. How about him? Could he be that one official? He had a huge enemies list.

I don't like AQ any more than you do, and I have only one degree of separation between two victims of WTC and all of those who died at the Pentagon.

However, I think that it is unwise and completely contrary to our principles of due process that one official make a life or death judgment of a U.S. citizen.

It is an incredibly slippery slope that we have been going down since 9/11. The Patriot Act, the renditions, the spying. It's not what I always thought that we are.

Even if it means that we have to live with being only 99.8% safe.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:38 PM

136. Bin Laden isn't an American citizen.

 

I wonder where the line is drawn. Can this be extended to an American on American soil? Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:17 PM

16. I saw that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:43 PM

3. “Senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida. Also if you violate the terms of service on any web site.

Who needs those silly court systems. Surely the founding fathers didn't intend any "checks and balances".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:05 AM

31. Oh but these desperate times call for desperate, extra-judicial, measures. We've had roughly...

...30 Americans killed in terrorist incidents inside the United States in the last 10 years.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should


That should be enough to circumvent our entire legal process, or at least enough to make up some bullshit writ outlining the conditions under which we should lose our liberty and lives.

Sarcasm here should be noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:27 AM

169. Interesting...

“…or at least enough to make up some bullshit writ outlining the conditions under which we should lose our liberty and lives.”

That’s pretty much exactly the point being made by NRA members in defense of the second amendment. Do we have an obligation to be consistent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:44 PM

4. "If they are believed to be . . ."

"If they are believed to be," by whom? The great and all-knowing Oz maybe?

I thought that was what we have courts, trials and rules of evidence for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:13 AM

23. The judicial process has been outsourced to Yemen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:45 PM

5. Wonder how many on the right

are heading for their bunkers right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgibby (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:01 PM

9. It astounds me

How the RWnuts bemoan their "loss of freedom", but never pay attention to ACTUAL losses of freedom such as this.

Do they not understand that govt. drone strikes trump AR-15 weapons every time it's tried?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:05 PM

20. What loss of freedom?

Could you point out where the Constitution specifies any rights for Americans when they are outside US jurisdiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:05 AM

22. It is not what we stand for as a country. It never has been.

There is no excusing this. Period.
This could be used against Greenpeace depending on who is deciding what the definition of terrorist is and that is
just off the top of my head. Whenever you open a door like this it gets wedged wider and wider. This is my opinion.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:39 PM

49. or Occupy

or any number of peacful, nonviolent protesters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgibby (Reply #49)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:53 PM

118. Occupy is within US jurisdiction

therefore, the Constitution applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:53 PM

117. Oh, there's no need to tweak the definition of terrorist.

Because, again, the Constitution doesn't apply outside US jurisdiction. The only thing protecting Greenpeace activists in the open ocean is we signed some treaties regarding "the law of the sea".

Absent those protections, there would be nothing preventing any President from torpedoing their ships at his whim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #117)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:59 PM

146. A citizen of this country should be guaranteed due process. Period. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #146)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:23 AM

153. And how do you plan to do that if said citizen is in Somalia?

Are you going to ask the warlords there to give due process instead of just shooting him in the head? Do you expect them to say "yes"? What do you propose we do if they say "no" in order to maintain our guarantee?

And what, exactly, is so magical about citizenship? Since we give due process to EVERYONE under US jurisdiction, including "illegal aliens", why should due process protections only extend to US citizens outside US jurisdiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #153)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:41 AM

155. You defend the indefensible.

Our country has always done these kinds of things. I am not under any illusion that we are perfect by any means. When it becomes policy and is openly done we violate those things we have always stood for.I felt the same about torture and the attempt to legitimize it. It is appalling. It opens the door for more abuse. We were able to go into a country and kill Bin Laden after all. It isn't like we could not attempt capture if it was absolutely necessary. It's not like we have not done this before. Remember John Phillip Walker Lindh? All US citizens should be guaranteed due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #155)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:57 AM

156. I am not defending what you think I'm defending

All US citizens should be guaranteed due process.

What makes citizens special such that they should have extra protection?

Aren't drone strikes just as horrific if only foreigners die?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #156)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:05 AM

158. Yes they are.

Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:12 AM

35. The Fifth Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:22 PM

99. How does the Fifth Amendment apply to a enemy combatant who is non-custodial? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:10 PM

120. You added "enemy combatant."

Neither I nor the poster I was responding to said "enemy combatant."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:17 PM

125. You were speaking of Anwar Awlaki, right? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #125)


Response to msanthrope (Reply #125)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:21 PM

128. I was speaking about "rights for Americans."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:56 PM

140. What rights do you think Americans abroad have? Particularly those who send PETN

bombs to Chicago synagogues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #140)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:25 PM

161. The same ones they have here. Especially when the violation of their rights originates

from within the U.S.

You mean someone who has been ACCUSED of sending PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #161)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:58 PM

165. No. Please do not travel without clarifying this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:43 PM

113. So we need to rescue any Americans arrested in France?

French law does not protect against self-incrimination.

So clearly, we need to send in a SEAL team if any American is arrested in France, right? After all, the US government has to ensure that 5th amendment right is protected.

Oh wait, that would be insane.

The Constitution only applies within US jurisdiction. That's one of the big reasons why we insist that our troops abroad remain under US jurisdiction - so that their rights remain protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:34 PM

48. The Constitution's protections doesn't relate to geography.

Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

It applies to every instrument of the United State government, wherever they are, whatever they are doing. Except for those protections specifically guaranteed only to citizens, or "the people," or other specific groups, they are all applicable in other countries, to foreign nationals, in international waters, or in wartime. If any agency acts outside of the Constitution anywhere, they are not acting as a legitimate authority of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:46 PM

115. Neither does jurisdiction

For example, US troops are under US jurisdiction wherever they are deployed.

Except for those protections specifically guaranteed only to citizens

Utterly false. Non-citizens have Constitutional rights when under US jurisdiction. Even "illegal aliens" have Constitutional rights, as long as they're under US jurisdiction.

If any agency acts outside of the Constitution anywhere, they are not acting as a legitimate authority of the government.

Other countries do not have first or fourth amendment protections. Is the US obligated to invade those countries if a US Citizen is arrested for making what would be a first-amendment-protected statement? If not, How exactly do you propose that the US government ensure these rights for US citizens anywhere in the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #9)


Response to Bo Didley (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:27 PM

46. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It astounds us RW Nuts too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=390917

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Poster admits to being a right-winger.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm kinda conflicted -- the site ain't for right-wingers, but the post is utterly civil. When in doubt, leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Joined up just to spout off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:31 PM

77. Dude you are supposed to keep those in Meta..

There are already threads of complaints there for this LOL...

Don't let it happen again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgibby (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:13 PM

53. This is something that the right and left should be united against.

Unfortunately, the propaganda for the one percent has so entrenched us in our little red and blue camps of hatred that we circle the wagons even around the indefensible.

And that is exactly how the one percent keep us divided and keep getting their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:57 PM

7. Lot o' Legal Wiggle Room.

Where none should exist.

We live in gangster times.

Thank you for the heads-up, Hissyspit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 PM

10. A government ceases to be legitimate.....

...the moment it justifies the killing of the people who created it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:10 PM

11. And 99.99% of us have nothing to worry about...

 

Not a big deal, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:17 PM

14. Any actual number for that bold assertion?

I worry about it when my neighbors, colleagues, professional associates, family members, or anyone else other than just plain me can be executed without hearing or trial, just "it is believed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:47 AM

33. Yeah, fuck the occasional innocent person.

And the rule of law.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:03 PM

44. What part of the memo do you disagree with? Be specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:14 PM

122. You keep adding stuff to your demands of me that aren't part of the original argument.

I wasn't talking about the memo. I was talking about this statement: "And 99.99% of us have nothing to worry about," a bullshit fallacious authoritarian-apologist attitude that would make Dick Cheney proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #122)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:15 PM

124. Didn't read the memo, then? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #124)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:18 PM

126. My response wasn't about the memo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:20 PM

72. Legally, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were both innocent men.

Never charged. Never tried. Never convicted. There's no legal basis to consider them guilty of anything, and our ham-fisted "bomb anything brown and Muslim" mentality has assured us that there never will be. We're simply supposed to take the governments word that they' were bad guys.

We have a judicial sytem for a reason. It's unacceptable for ANY administration to avoid using it when dealing with American civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #72)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:18 PM

96. Legally, they were not. As members of Al Qaeda--self-proclaimed members of Al Qaeda

they were subject to the AUMF of 9/18/2001.

Were they not members of Al Qaeda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #96)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:03 PM

107. Legally they were.

I don't really care what the AUMF says. Congress does not have the authority to order the extrajudicial executions of American citizens merely based on their membership in a prohibited group. Congress must work within the bounds of the Constitution, and the 5th Amendment makes it clear that American citizens get trials.

To argue otherwise is nothing short of frightening. Do you really believe that Congress has the authority to arbitrarily authorize the mass execution of ANY group of Americans that it considers to be enemies of the state? Do you really believe that the military should be able to kill any American who joins a group that the government considers "enemies", no matter what their role or alleged crimes? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for.

Extrajudicial executions of American citizens are NOT OK simply because Congress signs off on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #107)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:13 PM

110. Osama Bin Laden was innocent? Deserved a trial? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #110)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:22 PM

111. Nice dodge. I'm not falling for it.

If you really can't see a difference between the situations, then this discussion is pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #111)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:29 PM

112. No-- I can't see the difference. You have two members of Al Qaeda, actively

involved in plots that have resulted in the murder of American citizens, hiding out from justice.

Tell me the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #112)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:19 PM

133. smh

I have a feeling that you're being deliberately obtuse, but just in case:

On one hand you're talking about a foreign national who is the head of a global militant organization, and who publicly admitted his role in the attacks. There was no question of his guilt or his role, and as a foreigner who wasn't present in the United States, he wasn't afforded our Constitutional protections.

On the other hand (Awlaki), you're talking about a guy who was an American citizen, whose publicly acknowledged role in Al Qaeda was limited to acting as an imam and posting sermoms on the Internet, and who pointedly denied the accusation that he was personally involved in terrorist attempts against the United States. Unlike OBL, who admitted his role and oversight of the organization and removed doubt about his culpability, Awlaki claimed innocence in attacks against Americans (he said that he agreed with them and encouraged others to do the same, but said that he wasn't involved in them). We're just supposed to take the word of some unnamed government employees that he was actually guilty of a crime worthy of summary execution.

Yeah, there's a difference. Awlaki may have been a genuine bad guy worthy of execution, and I have no qualms with blowing him and his ilk to bits once that's demonstrated, but that's what TRIALS are for. He should have been indicted and tried in absentia, and a jury should have judged his guilt.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #133)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:08 PM

134. Thank you, Xithras, for your patient and intelligent posts on this topic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #133)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:46 PM

137. American citizenship isn't a shield...in fact, I would ask why you thought American citizens had

'superior' rights to all others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #111)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:15 PM

123. Nothing but dodges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 AM

157. What about the 16 year old American teen with them?

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi's grandfather is suing because his 16 year old grandson was also killed.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that he was Al Qaeda. He was also an American. So, at the moment, his status is simply dead American teenager killed by his own government while overseas.

I didn't like torture. I don't like this. Keep in mind, these individuals were also in a country, we're not at war with.

So, let's say one of these little countries gets its act together and decides to send a drone our way. The technology is getting cheaper by a moment. They have a target of interest in our hometown, near our workplace, schools, etc.

Your ex-husband or wife, was into some shady dealings involving their country, so they sent a drone and took him out. But, oops...they took out a child or two while they were at it. Is the fact that they had a good reason to kill the parent, enough to forgive the death of the child also?

Not to mention, aren't these drones creating new communities of people who simply want to kill us. Plus, we get absolutely no actionable intelligence from dead people. But, we do create a boatload of new enemies.

This is bad policy. No matter the president. And, presidents never give back power. So, once the president we like goes out of power...another one, we probably won't like will eventually come into power and this will be his tool, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:19 PM

17. http://www.hackadrone.com

 

http://www.bugbrother.com/echelon/spookwordsgenerator.html


Sample:

From: Michael_Miron@ita.doc.gov
To: info@opic.gov
Subj: COBEOWEHHO (CLASSIFIED - Russia)

George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence (CIA), told North Korea Reconnaissance Bureau about Mayotte (Indian Ocean) frenchelon station : a cryptoanarchist sent EloAufkl (german Elektronische Aufklärung)`s web based CGI proxys & Anonymizers logs to Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) a.k.a. Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna !

Ask 634th Military Intelligence`s contact of Vivendi Universal pollution Dpt via http://www.odci.gov/ic/ for Ref. Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, MI6, Information Security, SAI, Information Warfare.



---Post it all over the Net. Permanently monkey wrench Echelon altogether. It's the patriotic thing to do.
.
.
.

..
.
.
Now, if you're REALLY interested in monkey wrenching the Blue Meanies, hack one of their domestic drones (30,000 strong in the near future):

Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone

American researchers took control of a flying drone by "hacking" into its GPS system - acting on a $1,000 (£640) dare from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

A University of Texas at Austin team used "spoofing" - a technique where the drone mistakes the signal from hackers for the one sent from GPS satellites.

The same method may have been used to bring down a US drone in Iran in 2011.
.
.


Spoofers are a new problem for GPS-guided drones, allowing hackers to trick navigation systems with false information. Humphreys and the team have designed a device costing less than $1,000 that sends out a GPS signal stronger than the ones coming down from orbiting satellites. At first, the rogue signal mimics the official one in order to trick the drone, and once it’s accepted new commands can be sent to the UAV. Naturally, Humphreys highlights the associated risks of such a device, saying that in the wrong hands drones could be turned into missiles. Right now drones can’t be used in US airspace on a wide basis, but Congress has asked the FAA to come up with regulations that would allows drones to fly over the United States by 2015. That could lead to usage in law enforcement, as well as by power companies and delivery firms. The US government says its aware of the potential dangers of spoofing, and officials from the FAA and Department of Homeland Security have seen Humphreys’ demonstration first hand. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly has a program in place to try and solve the problem of GPS interference, but it’s aimed at trying to deal with jammed signals, not spoofed ones.

Reference Links:
http://www.slashgear.com/researchers-find-drones-vulnerable-to-gps-spoofing-29236474
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18643134
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
Obsession with National Security (#7 of "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism"):

"Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous."
.
.
.
*Reference Link:
"Fascism Anyone?" by Laurence W. Britt
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:20 PM

18. It ain't gonna happen. Who would even consider arming themselves. Here. On DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:29 PM

19. "broader concept of imminence?" More like "broader concept of eminence"...

In some "contexts" on D.U., this report and its analysis would be considered "paranoid," "thinking the government is tyrannical," "RW meme," etc. But we don't have to worry about any of that since this is another "context."

Ain't reality-shifting channel changers fun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:05 PM

21. Obama = Bush

 

Tried to tell you but the cheerleaders cry rivers when you bring it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:41 AM

25. I don't get into the member politics around here...

But my guess is if other people posted Bush = Obama, and then insult everything that DU stands for according to the ToS (Cheerleader = hard work that people put in to re-elect the President instead of having Mittens re-decorating the Oval Office right now?)

There are plenty of things to criticize Obama about, including the subject matter of this thread. But Obama = Bush, to me, is such over the top hyperbole that it really shouldn't need refuting, on Democratic Underground.


On a self-ish note, my 25 year old brother received great care when he had a hernia and was able to be on my father's insurance.

On an un-selfish note, there are a ton of Unionized American workers that are very grateful that they still have jobs at GM, or anywhere for that matter.

There are countless families and their soldier children that are relieved we did not give into Bibi's pressure and attack Iran. That we left a minimal force in Iraq. That he is not giving in to pressure from Generals to keep a large force in Afghanistan.

As the brave men and women who were discharged under DADT cash their rightfully earned checks they are receiving, let them know that Obama = Bush.

I am pissed about Guantanamo, the expanstion of the Drug War, getting involved in Yemen and Africa, believe me. And I can't prove what the alternative would have been under Mccain, with Palin a heartbeat away from "the button" (shudder), or Romney. But I have an idea. What he has done, and has the chance to do with the Supreme Court, will last for generations to come.



Unless "=" has a new meaning, I would not stoop to that level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:44 AM

26. Save you "righteousness" for the newbies.

 

When a president says he is above the law he starts down the road of being a shitbag dictator.

I don't give fuck how many " jobs" he saved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:50 AM

28. Well, I guess you have me there.

i can't really argue with that solid logic.

Enjoy your intellectual victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:53 AM

29. Sure thing.

 

Enjoy your feel good threads and its OK if a Democrat does rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:33 AM

39. Thank you Arctic Dave!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:52 AM

42. He isn't saying he is above the law. In fact, he's made a compelling case that

what he is done is completely within the law.

I suggest you read the memo.

Tell me what part you disagree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:19 PM

54. Within the law? Are you kidding?

 

Since when has "imminent" become a synonym for "maybe".

Sounds like Obama is channeling dick cheney with his 1% bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:21 PM

55. No--I'm not kidding. Cite specifically in the memo what you find unlawful.

It would help you read the memo, rather than an article about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #55)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:41 PM

56. Here is the problem with the memo as I read it now.

 

We have created a bogeyman/strawman called AQ or Taliban or whatever the name du jour is and no we believe we have authority to kill anyone associated with them. Why? Because they are plotting to harm us? Hello! We have an entire floor at the pentagon that does that very same thing, are othe countries and organizations allowed the same liberties that we are granting ourselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:20 PM

97. What? You think Al Qaeda is a strawman? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #97)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:37 PM

102. AQ is a vague bogeyman we use to justify

 

our military adventurism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #102)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:58 PM

106. AQAP is no vague boogeyman. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was no figment of anyone's

imagination on that flight, bound for Detroit. The Cargo Bomb Plot---not a figment of anyone's imagination. The British Airways Plot--not a figment of anyone's imagination--unless you think Rajib Karim is unjustly imprisoned.

These are acts of terror, not vague boogeymen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #106)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:43 PM

114. Eleven years, billions wasted and you got three examples.

 

A dozen countries bombed, unknown amount tortured and thousands upon thousands dead and that is what you got.

Don't look in the mirror, you may see something you don't want to admit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #114)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:52 PM

116. No--I've got plenty more. But if you think Al Qaeda is a strawman, then no amount of examples

will convince you.

Was the President correct to target and kill Osama Bin Laden? Or was he a strawman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #116)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:02 PM

119. Why did he kill him, why not bring him alive?

 

The US is the biggest terrorist group on the planet. And Obama leads it.

Why are we in Libya? AQ? Was there a plot against the US
Why are we in Mali? AQ? Was there a plot against the US
etc., etc., etc.

Is there an AQ card they get when they join or is it a name we give them to justify our military aggression. So if you have more by all means let us know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #119)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:12 PM

121. Kill who? Awlaki? Because capture was not feasible. And, as the judge in his

father's case noted, he'd had plenty of opportunity to secure counsel and challenge his status through the courts. He chose not to.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #121)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:45 PM

129. Either OBL or Awlaki.

 

Where is the proof that Awlaki was planning an imminent attack against the US?

Not just saying how awesome it would be to do it. After all, we have hundreds of media personalities in the US that say shit just as bad towards other countries almost daily.

No, wait, they even say it against the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #129)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:53 PM

139. Forgive me, but did you miss Fort Hood, the PETN bombs, the BA airlines plot, the Timms attack, the

Detroit bomb, the Times Square plot, and the Youtube videos?

Or are we just pretending that these are all just shadow plots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:00 PM

141. Ft Hood was AQ?

 

LOL.

Your comments are exactly why this is an abominations and Obama is a jackass for doing this. You have lowered the bar on what it takes to be an AQ "leader".

Should we have killed the nut that shot up the school with a drone? How about anyone with a gun? Or citizens who act out against a corrupt government?

As for the BA plot, WTF is that. You mean the flight stwardess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #141)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:04 PM

142. Fort Hood? Yes. Awlaki was in contact with the shooter. As for the BA bomb plot, I am

shocked that you are unfamiliar with that--it wasn't much reported in the MSM in this country, but was all over the World Media, complete with emails from Anwar Awlaki, read in court...




He and his brother had contacted radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, saying they wanted to fight jihad overseas.


Anwar al-Awlaki's perfect grasp of English has made him attractive to Western jihadists
But Mr Awlaki, a US-born preacher, persuaded Karim to stay at BA and find a way of getting a bomb on a plane, saying the IT worker could be the breakthrough al-Qaeda was looking for.

Karim agreed to work with Mr Awlaki and said he would also look at whether he could crash BA's computer systems, bringing chaos to international travel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12788224

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #142)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:41 PM

143. I am unable to find a link to the ft hood shooter and AA.

 

As for the ba, are talking about a message written on a bathroom wall? Lol.

Should we kill this guy without a judicial hearing?

http://www.i4u.com/2013/01/tennessee/ccw-costs-threat-trainer-gun-permit


He threatened to kill Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to msanthrope (Reply #144)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:55 PM

145. Thank you for the links

 

So, what I did not find was a link saying that AA told the ft hood shooter to do this.

Seems he was pissed about the US bombing and killing Muslims and he decoded to cap a few of the people he saw as the aggressors. Terrorism or vengeance?

How does causing a computer to crash justify killing people. Should we kill anonymous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:58 PM

62. Bush's lawyers made the compelling case that torture is within the law

did you cheer that one too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:14 PM

69. Bush's lawyers did not make a compelling case. Kindly cite which part of the Yoo memo

you found compelling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:10 PM

51. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:51 PM

58. President Obama never said that he was above the law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:56 PM

60. When you pervert the rule of law to allow yourself unconstitutional powers I would

 

say that is at least a definition of being above it.

Sounds like a Yoo moment. It's not illegal if the President does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #60)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:03 PM

64. The memo gives the legal justification

Perhaps your legal education has been more rigorous that those advising President Obama (or Mr. Obama himself, a former law professor). I suggest that you draft an alternative memo and get it to President Obama ASAP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:09 PM

66. Seems there are several people that agree with me, including the ACLU.

 

Not that has ever stopped Obama from ignoring anyone that doesn't agree with him when it comes to killing and bombing.

Shows how bad our acedemic situation is when Obama thinks this is allowable.

Do you think Yoo and Gonzalez is advising him now like they did bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:11 PM

68. The ALCU isn't always right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:17 PM

71. And state sponsored killing of people without trial never is.

 

How far down the bureaucratic ladder should we allow these things to happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #71)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:26 PM

75. So, should we have served Osama bin Laden with a subpoena rather than killing him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:43 PM

79. I would have much rather have seen him on trial.

 

I find it interesting that a lot of our old "allies" find their demise rather then light being shed on our past relations with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:48 PM

81. At what cost of life to US service members?

It had to be a quick operation, as Pakistan wasn't exactly cooperative. We couldn't lay siege to the compound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:52 PM

84. Hmmm, what would have taken longer then dragging a dead body to crashed helicopter.

 

Moving a live one?

Wait a second, that's crazy talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:51 PM

83. It sure would have been nice

to see the evidence against Bin Laden. Oh that's right - that's classified, so we citizens can't know what kind of proof there was that he was behind 9/11. We just have to take their word (and no, I'm not a "truther")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:11 PM

89. Osama bin Laden was not a US citizen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:35 PM

101. I kept thinking someone would point out that OBL was not a US citizen long before 89 posts!

Its as though those who keep pointing out OBL's extra judicial assassination didn't read the OP which is about AMERICANS being targeted for extra judicial assassination by their government.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:47 PM

80. I would much sooner trust

the ACLU than the President's minions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:49 PM

82. So, you would trust President Obama more if he had different minions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #58)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:00 AM

147. I think he did say he was 'in front' of the law, when he explained that

 

we need to look forward rather than backward when it comes to Bush's alleged crimes against humanity and against the peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:10 PM

67. In some ways, this subject makes me miss Shrub.

At least we could get people fired up to protest against this crap when Shrub was in office. There are FAR too many people on the left who think that killing innocent civilians is OK when it's a Democrat pulling the trigger.

The idea of an American government deliberately killing an American citizen without trying him first...or even charging him with a crime...is an affront to everything that this nation is supposed to stand for. It's a fundamental human rights violation, a clear violation of our Constitutional rights, and an insult to everyone who has fought, died, or protested for a free United States.

The fact that it's a Democratic administration authorizing it doesn't make it "better".


There are systems for dealing with this kind of thing. If they want to indict these Americans, try them in absentia, and sentence them to death for fighting against America, I'd have no real problem with dropping a bunker buster on their heads to carry out the sentence once all of the legal steps are completed. But it's absolutely indefensible to allow a relatively small group of government employees to determine who gets to live and who gets to die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:14 PM

70. Better stated then I could do.

 

Amazing what the Left cheers when the D is behind the name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:37 PM

78. In a way it's understandable.

People won't stand up for issues that they don't care about, against a politician who otherwise supports the issues that they DO care about. Even when Shrub was in office, most of the people who protested this stuff didn't actually care about it...they opposed Shrub for a hundred different reasons and were simply willing to help undermine a politician they already didn't like.

Too few people care about the subject to make any real kind of difference, and nobody is going to protest against a leader they like over something that never really bothered them in the first place. Walk down any street in America and ask people whether they support torturing suspected terrorists. Whether you're in a Democratic area or a Republican one, in a big city or a small town, I guarantee that the responses will depress you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:54 PM

85. well said, Xithras

This type of hypocrisy makes me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:40 PM

103. This thread is very discouraging

A number of Dems are just as craven and sociopathic as the Repukes. I don't know whether they will go along with anything that a Dem does, or if their love of Obama trumps their love of the Constitution.

I can tell you this. This sort of thing is costing the president and the Dems support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:02 AM

148. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

 

needed saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:05 PM

162. Succinct. 1,000,00 Recs. if I could, ty. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:14 AM

166. Really?

Which war did Obama start based on lies? I missed that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #166)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:25 PM

170. How many countries has Obama bombed?

 

Oh wait! That doesn't count because "there aren't boots on the ground".

Or, is it, "Obama eneded the Iraq war". Uhhh, no he did not. He followed bush's timeline. The only reason we aren't still there is because they couldn't agree on a SOFA to keep them there longer.

He could have ended the Afghan occupation earlier. Obama did not, he followed bush's plan, again. But now they are back peddling on keeping forces there longer.

Or are we just going to narrow down the debate to one activity that fits your arguement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #170)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:02 PM

172. Oh please Obama and Bush are not alike

go pedal that crap somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #172)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:07 PM

173. No. I will state it right here. Deal with it.

 

If you think the rule of law is garbage go have a rally and say it out loud.

Burning the consitution and some law books should bring you some delight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:14 AM

24. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:46 AM

27. We'd better wake up, folks.

This isn't going back the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:56 AM

30. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:39 AM

32. This sounds like the kind

of shit John Yoo used to dream up,now I see why Obama wanted to look forward instead of charging the bush war criminals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joelz (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:50 PM

57. Yes. Obama has embraced the national security state.

The full Patriot Act is intact and U.S. citizens are killed by their government without a trial.

Obama's former classmates at Harvard said that Obama thought the Constitution an imperfect document.

Now we know that Obama has qualms about the Bill of Rights as well.

Like Arctic Dave, I didn't think that Obama was a civil libertarian.

Thanks, AD, for giving everyone a heads up on this side of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joelz (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:01 PM

63. Yep. that's why no president ever indicts his predecessors

endless daisy chain of corruption and tyranny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:01 AM

34. "dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects"

Seems like how many degrees of separation are necessary to attack by drone an al-Qaida "enemy" or "suspects that has been funded, created, encouraged, or otherwise influenced by aggressive or at least proactive influence of our own DoD, intelligence agencies, and private wealth accumulations.

USA military culture bi-partisianship in action. Mercy for the children and innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:23 AM

36. More Police State apparatii are coming:

Cameras & microphone recorders in TVs, cameras outfitted in every car, license plate recording cameras at every intersection in every nation of the world, and EDR's & GPS in virtually every car make/model starting in 2012.

Total Information Awareness Program: Big Brother Is Watching, Recording

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:52 PM

59. Yep, it's getting dystopian out there...

When will we have had enough, that we stop circling the wagons?

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 woo me with science (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:27 PM

100. I fear it will be too late once the collective outrage catches up to the abuses

We are so inoculated, most of us can't see past the hedges in our own suburbs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:52 AM

37. So,

the Gov can preemptively kill US citizens--not only without trial or proof, but without any crime having yet been committed--if the Gov "believes" the person to be a senior leader of a group "associated" with al-Qaida.
And the Gov was certain that Saddam had WMD, before preemptively invading Iraq -- oops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:05 AM

149. Support our Oops! - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:26 AM

38. Kick nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:37 AM

40. The government is not infallible

yet it appears to be equally worshipped by many the same way a god is, viewing it much in the same way, infallible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:50 AM

41. Terrifying....to say the least.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:01 PM

43. Having read the white paper, I can tell you that this was an Administration leak.

And if one wants to send PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues, one does so at one's peril---

http://www.juancole.com/2010/10/saudi-arabia-saves-chicago-synagogue-from-al-qaeda-bomb-plot.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:11 PM

52. K&R Have we had enough yet?

Yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:56 PM

61. Here I thought that John Yoo was an aberration

Guess we have Yoo's on our side too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:03 PM

65. forget due process by law just blow them up

that makes the case real easy to convict

This terrifies me America seems to be going down a very dark path

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:26 PM

76. At least we aren't torturing them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:04 PM

86. Will the GOP use this to impeach President Obama? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pryderi (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:21 PM

90. DU would be calling for IMPEACHMENT if GWB did this.

I believe the people defending this would be calling for impeachment too if the president had an (R) after their name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NOVA_Dem (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:09 PM

163. You may not post often, but you post well.

There is much truth in what you say...thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:06 PM

87. a “broader concept of imminence” means fear, plain and simple....

Broadening the concept of "imminence" to include fear of attack as itself sufficient justification to attack someone else. That is pretty much identical to the Bush doctrine of preemptive force as far as I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #87)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:10 AM

150. Technical note: while Bush may have called his doctrine 'preemptive' (legal under

 

international law), the Bush Doctrine was actually 'preventive' (completely illegal under international law unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council). That right there should be sufficient to see Bush and Cheney indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, not that I'm holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:07 PM

88. Take note on who is defending this garbage.

They are not friends of Justice nor Peace.

F..king disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:54 PM

93. This is disgusting

 

I can't believe I am reading posts here that actually support this action! WTH? This is something both sides should condemn. How can anyone with a brain support this? Are you OK with a politician being able to kill a US citizen without due process just because they THINK they MAY be a threat? Really? Why? Because THIS guy has a "D" after his name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:07 PM

95. Oy. A dangerous continuation of a dangerous precedent

This is not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:54 PM

105. And somewhere in an exclusive suburban Dallas gated community

 

an un-indicted war criminal former President of the United states is nodding and quietly chuckling to himself.

Good thing that impeachment stuff is still off the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Reply #105)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:11 PM

109. So you must also think

 

Obama is also a war criminal? This white paper came from Obama's administration, not his predecessor. We need to stop blaming the predecessor for everything Obama has done! This is serious stuff with implications for our future. We need to quit focusing on the past and admit this guy is a nightmare! This is not the Hope and Change I voted for. Is it what you voted for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waitwhat (Reply #109)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:45 PM

130. Holy mackerel.

We get it. This isn't what/whom you voted for.

What did you vote for?

Love the name, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #130)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:32 AM

154. I voted for someone else

 

I voted for the guy that promised to close Gitmo, end the war, not involve us in more wars that we had no business in, I voted for the senator that said increasing the debt limit was due to a lack of leadership and "unpatriotic". I voted for the the guy that promised to be a uniter. That is not what we have gotten. Now he says he can kill anyone he THINKS MAY BE a threat. No due process. That is unforgivable. I have made my last excuses for this typical politician. He has killed three Americans in drone strikes.....one was a 16 year old. Every American should have a big problem with this, no matter what their politics are.
When do we say enough is enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:11 PM

108. Extra-judicial executions R Us! - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 AM

160. In the end, you have a President going into Congress, accusing enemies of being "associated forces",

and having people hauled off and summarily executed, just like Saddam did in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #160)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:19 PM

164. Brilliant analogy.

Shock and Awe - okay. Torture - okay, Extra-judicial killing of American Citizens - okay.

Shining beacon on the hill, indeed.

What have we become? What have "WE" allowed?

We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

For once, I can almost understand the rabid right's call for arms and possible insurrection.... it's a topsy-turvy upside down fucked up existence here in America.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #160)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:35 AM

167. Actually ...

> In the end, you have a President going into Congress, accusing enemies of being "associated forces",
> and having people hauled off and summarily executed, just like Saddam did in Iraq.

Hauling people off and summarily executing them is technically better than lobbing a couple of
missiles in their direction and screw the "collateral damage" ...

(Not that the latter behaviour sets a particularly high or admirable standard of course.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread