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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans [View all]mike_c
(36,191 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
183 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 [View all]
Hissyspit
Feb 2013
OP
Focusing On The NRA - More Guns Won't Help Americans Against A Drone Strike
cantbeserious
Feb 2013
#1
Please state one case when drones have been used against American citizens on US soil.
kestrel91316
Feb 2013
#73
With The Recent Knowledge That Any American Can Be So Targeted, It Is Only A Matter Of Time
cantbeserious
Feb 2013
#131
No need to worry. The government would never attack an American citizen with its firepower.
dkf
Feb 2013
#2
so what the US Marshalls should have gone to Tora Bora and served warrants?
arely staircase
Feb 2013
#180
Well they sure have tortured some. I guess you can classify me as a lunatic. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#12
When it comes to Al Qaeda operatives/seditious "Americans" making war on us while
kestrel91316
Feb 2013
#74
kestrel, not to get too technical, but I don't think Osama has been alive for a long, long time.
Th1onein
Feb 2013
#91
Americans are protected by the Constitution and the Amendments thereto against
amandabeech
Feb 2013
#135
“Senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida. Also if you violate the terms of service on any web site.
Scuba
Feb 2013
#3
Oh but these desperate times call for desperate, extra-judicial, measures. We've had roughly...
Ed Suspicious
Feb 2013
#31
How does the Fifth Amendment apply to a enemy combatant who is non-custodial? nt
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#99
What rights do you think Americans abroad have? Particularly those who send PETN
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#140
The same ones they have here. Especially when the violation of their rights originates
Hissyspit
Feb 2013
#161
This is something that the right and left should be united against.
woo me with science
Feb 2013
#53
You keep adding stuff to your demands of me that aren't part of the original argument.
Hissyspit
Feb 2013
#122
Legally, they were not. As members of Al Qaeda--self-proclaimed members of Al Qaeda
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#96
No-- I can't see the difference. You have two members of Al Qaeda, actively
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#112
Thank you, Xithras, for your patient and intelligent posts on this topic. n/t
amandabeech
Feb 2013
#134
American citizenship isn't a shield...in fact, I would ask why you thought American citizens had
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#137
It ain't gonna happen. Who would even consider arming themselves. Here. On DU.
Eleanors38
Feb 2013
#18
He isn't saying he is above the law. In fact, he's made a compelling case that
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#42
AQAP is no vague boogeyman. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was no figment of anyone's
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#106
No--I've got plenty more. But if you think Al Qaeda is a strawman, then no amount of examples
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#116
Kill who? Awlaki? Because capture was not feasible. And, as the judge in his
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#121
Forgive me, but did you miss Fort Hood, the PETN bombs, the BA airlines plot, the Timms attack, the
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#139
Fort Hood? Yes. Awlaki was in contact with the shooter. As for the BA bomb plot, I am
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#142
Bush's lawyers did not make a compelling case. Kindly cite which part of the Yoo memo
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#69
When you pervert the rule of law to allow yourself unconstitutional powers I would
Arctic Dave
Feb 2013
#60
So, should we have served Osama bin Laden with a subpoena rather than killing him?
Freddie Stubbs
Feb 2013
#75
Hmmm, what would have taken longer then dragging a dead body to crashed helicopter.
Arctic Dave
Feb 2013
#84
I kept thinking someone would point out that OBL was not a US citizen long before 89 posts!
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#101
I think he did say he was 'in front' of the law, when he explained that
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#147
I fear it will be too late once the collective outrage catches up to the abuses
Puzzledtraveller
Feb 2013
#100
Having read the white paper, I can tell you that this was an Administration leak.
msanthrope
Feb 2013
#43
Technical note: while Bush may have called his doctrine 'preemptive' (legal under
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#150
In the end, you have a President going into Congress, accusing enemies of being "associated forces",
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#160