Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case For Drone Strikes On Americans - MSNBC [View all]ellisonz
(27,711 posts)81. Downloaded for later reading.
Thanks!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
206 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case For Drone Strikes On Americans - MSNBC [View all]
WillyT
Feb 2013
OP
Focusing On The NRA - More Guns Won't Protect Americans From A Drone Strike
cantbeserious
Feb 2013
#2
Those tribesmen should not inspect the attack site. Drone operators are wont to perform "double taps
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#8
Oh... If It Was A Republican President... We'd Be Screaming From The Rooftops...
WillyT
Feb 2013
#11
Actually, if Mr. Bush had used drones at Tora Bora, I'd have been just fine with that. Osama should
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#31
This is something that the right and left should be capable of uniting against.
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#45
Mr. Awlaki posted hundreds of videos to Youtube proclaiming his Al Qaeda membership. Rep. Weiner
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#77
Oh no--we've got one prolific poster who thinks he was a "peaceful cleric." FYI--the Constitutional
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#110
Doesn't matter because the government is always bound by the constitution
TheKentuckian
Feb 2013
#121
Bingo! The information about the language of the AUMF is the point that is largely being left out..
PennsylvaniaMatt
Feb 2013
#147
Well, some people forget his role in the Clinton farce impeachment...Lucianne Goldberg called him
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#198
I am seriously suggesting this policy has no place for the concept of fairness, proof
Bonobo
Feb 2013
#126
So much about this pisses me off. First, the Obama Administration has refused to produce this
morningfog
Feb 2013
#15
This is absolutely insane. Obama is totally AWOL on his constitutional duties
LittleBlue
Feb 2013
#18
There's clearly more to this than the fear of "terra" or an external invasion........
marmar
Feb 2013
#24
Sorry, but if Bush had had the foresight to drone Osama in 2001, I'd have been just fine with that.
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#34
Not really relevant since Osama wasn't killed by a drone, we did that in person.
bighart
Feb 2013
#36
I am not sure why you think American citizens deserve more consideration than other humans---
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#37
Yemen okayed the strikes. The UN will not put a stop to it because the idea of conflict being
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#40
You may have a point in this case but the UN is certainly NOT okay with our current drone policy.
bighart
Feb 2013
#87
The UN is just fine with it--see Libya, Mali, etc. The UN 'investigated' the Bradley Manning
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#88
Because waging war on one's OWN citizens is a war crime that we are allegedly against?
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#97
It is constitutional to kill without trial in narrowly defined circumstances. What part of the
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#74
No judicial review of the AUMF of 9/18/2001? Or the memo? What part of the memo
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#82
Ahem...the 6th Amendment doesn't apply to a non-custodial combatant. It never has. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#106
Guess what? "Combatant" applies to actual wars, not crimes such as bombings fo buildings.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#156
Nothing to see here, the Killings will continue, and you will all be powerless to stop them
bobduca
Feb 2013
#203
Nonsense. The resolution can be repealed. Just waiting for the Congresscritter who will
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#204
Hell it is even illegal to assassinate foreign state leaders even if they pose an imminent threat
bighart
Feb 2013
#202
What silence? Since you've read the memo, tell us what you disagree with. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#41
The law is quite public. The War Powers Act, the AUMF of 9/18/2001 are all public. The memo itself
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#96
Kindly point to the part in the memo that you disagree with. Be specific. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#65
"Were the target of a lethal operation a US citizen who may have Due Process rights under the 4th
LittleBlue
Feb 2013
#99
Thanks, still waiting for a substantive answer on this thread before I venture out. nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#69
I'm asking people to read the memo they are outraged over, and point to where they disagree.
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#80
American citizens on paper only. Good thing those of us that aren't terrorists will be fine. nt
EastKYLiberal
Feb 2013
#43
Crap like this makes me want to find an actual progressive political party.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#54
It is almost a certainty that a Republican will be elected president at some time in the near future
amandabeech
Feb 2013
#76
They are if they behave similarly. Got that? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD SANCTION THIS
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#102
Yes, they're the same thing: The President of the United States of America
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2013
#177
"in his eyes"???? THAT'S ALL IT TAKES NOW? "IN HIS EYES"??! RIP, CONSTITUTION.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#103
I thought "terrorists" were so ascertained by a trial. At least, they used to be.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#101
"broader concept of imminence". Is that like "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#67
No, telling people they can't mean what they mean and how they mean it is totalitarian.nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#125
"Imminent" means "imminent," not "sometime in the future." BTW, are you claiming Humpty-
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#154
So assuming that you know enough to define what is and what is not imminent is not true. nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#172
Words have both connotative and denotative meanings & they are pretty fungible, not
patrice
Feb 2013
#173
I taught English; I'm QUITE familiar with "connotations", etc. "Imminence" IN THIS CONTEXT
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#200
Not good. REALLY, REALLY not good. Criminal, IMO (courts can be, as well, we've seen).
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#95
+10000 What will it take for Americans to stop circling the wagons
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#105
+1 It makes you ill, doesn't it, thinking about where this is leading.
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#134
How many dead people are too many to (according to you) "protect the Constitution"? nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#142
Do you support a presumed 2A "right" to go to war with the government for guns? nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#146
It will take recognition that some opposition to your point is NOT about party. It's about
patrice
Feb 2013
#118
Is this clear enough: What are the risks associated with your preferred course of action? nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#139
You mean our President NOT having the power to assassinate Americans without due process?
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#151
Is today the same as yesterday? Answer my question: WHAT ARE THE RISKS of your preferred course of
patrice
Feb 2013
#155
They're called "arrests and trials." Ask the Baader-Meinhof Gang. Or McVeigh.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#164
I'm for that, but the World Court and/or the U.N. usually aren't very popular with the crowd
patrice
Feb 2013
#168
I bet the Republicans are drooling over prospects of getting control of this.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#108
You all are constantly saying this shouldn't be about party, then you MAKE it about party. nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#120
And so would be the things that COULD happen if we don't meet our responsibilities to
patrice
Feb 2013
#137
Let's see your solution scenario & please distinguish between might and "might". nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#143
I'm referring to the probabilities upon which policy and action are based. Some things are more
patrice
Feb 2013
#153
Tell me how many people's lives the difference between might and "might" is worth. nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#144
What if similar actions could've prevented 9/11 and, therefore, all that happened as a result of it?
patrice
Feb 2013
#138
You DO know that men were ARRESTED in 1993 heading to NYC with bombs? Yeah, ARRESTED, not KILLED.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#169
I'm all for arrest, but that was domestic and much of what we are talking about isn't, so the
patrice
Feb 2013
#179
I want to see one godamned viable ALTERNATIVE in this thread, right the frack now! If people
patrice
Feb 2013
#122
So people's LIVES are expendable, just as long as we pretend that laws are perfect. nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#165
No. One of my main points here is that some of those who oppose it are also very chary
patrice
Feb 2013
#184
Arrests and trials. Why are you refusing to address this Constitutional answer?
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#171
It's not perfect. It never was. e.g. There are people claiming that it enshrines the right to
patrice
Feb 2013
#191
Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
KakistocracyHater
Feb 2013
#199
If I don't see an answer to my question, I'll have to take it that people DYING more PC is OKAY
patrice
Feb 2013
#124
Agree. This IS some fucked up stuff, but pretending that there aren't dangers could be worse.
patrice
Feb 2013
#148
How's that for "sophistry" for you? HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE is what you want worth???
patrice
Feb 2013
#160
Please answer the question: How many dead people are too many for your ideology? nt
patrice
Feb 2013
#170
That's exactly the position the Republicans took under Bush-- did you buy it then?
Marr
Feb 2013
#174
Are you willing to let others who did not CHOOSE whatever you have chosen die? Do you have
patrice
Feb 2013
#180
Because someone made mistakes or outright LIED in the past, does that mean ALL others
patrice
Feb 2013
#181
Look, WTH are you going on about, with "DEAD PEOPLE"? McVeigh had a trial. Bush
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#176
You can bet your life on a probability of 0 threat. You can CHOOSE to do that. You cannot choose
patrice
Feb 2013
#182
Trust me; you wouldn't want me to grade your writing. And adding the "F bomb"
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#201
Search "drones US border" and similar and you'll see the US already patrols the Canadian border
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#195