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]Bonobo
(29,257 posts)126. I am seriously suggesting this policy has no place for the concept of fairness, proof
openness, responsibility, recourse, etc.
Are you seriously pretending it is NOT out of touch with the last 1,000 years concept of justice?
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