This message was self-deleted by its author

[sl8]

This message was self-deleted by its author (sl8) on Fri Nov 27, 2020, 07:19 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[obamanut2012]

1. Christ, this is appalling

K & R

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. China very frequently assert national security when imprisoning its citizens, or killing

tRumpanzees always are certain that these powers are okay because only people they hate would be killed: journalists, citizens of colour, nobody like them.

[SunSeeker]

3. K & R for exposure.

[Klaralven]

4. "Kareem says, the U.S. government targeted him five times"

If true, its unlikely that he would be around to sue over it.

Plus, he was in a foreign country in a war zone consorting with the enemy who would have been legitimate targets.

[oldsoftie]

7. That point seems to be lost.

[Lonestarblue]

8. He's a journalist. Was he aiding and abetting an enemy or writing a story?

That’s why there needs to be review rather than just let the government kill people because they “think” they may be enemies.

[Klaralven]

9. How would the intelligence analysts distinguish between a reporter and a courier?

If you see some guy going from one enemy leader to another, he's an eligible target.

Also:

The judge also dismissed Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan from the lawsuit as his claims that he is a target were speculative. Ahmad is not a US citizen.

In August 2020, Bilal and British aid worker Tauqir Sharif were arrested by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham and as of October 2020, their whereabouts and charges are unknown. Residents of Idlib, including family members of Sharif and associates of Bilal, have protested the arrests by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, citing the lack of any official charges and lack of any visits or information being afforded to family and friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Abdul_Kareem

Just because someone is using "journalist" as a cover, doesn't mean they aren't involved in other activities.

[marble falls]

32. They can discriminate between who he is and isn't to target him but not enough to know he's ...

... a journalist? How many "State Secrets" was he privy to?

[lsewpershad]

38. How about a

guy posing as president?

[intheflow]

39. "If you see some guy going from one enemy leader to another, he's an eligible target."

No, not when it's a US citizen. Because you know damn well if Barr could he would declare Democrats enemies of the State; anyone associating with Obama (the lead "enemy" ) is therefore a target. This is the logical outcome of such blanket assumptions of guilt and death sentences, especially for non-white citizens.

No extrajudicial killings of US citizens EVER!

[Eyeball_Kid]

35. It's so much easier (or lazier) to just bomb away and leave the craters.

Who needs discretion when you can just eliminate a "nuisance" and not have to be accountable? This is another illustration of Barr's belief that the executive branch is all-powerful.

[spanone]

5. 'president' don jong-il

[Dem2]

22. June and August 2016

What the heck is going on? Has this been a policy under both parties? It may be the Rump justice department making these insane justifications, but it supposedly happened under Obama?

[rwsanders]

29. There have been drone strikes that have killed U.S. citizens.

https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

But all of our armed conflicts require congressional declaration of war. So we've gone through the looking glass a long time ago. I don't know if it is true, but the running joke in MASH was that they were never allowed to call it a "war" because it was a "police action".

To me that is why the Declaration of Independence should finally be recognized as a legal document (it is, but has never been used in court), because it would be much harder to do these things if you had to start with the realization that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". So non-citizens have the same rights.

[sarisataka]

43. all of our armed conflicts require congressional declaration of war

It has never been the case that armed conflict has required a declaration of war from Congress. The US has only been in 5 declared wars, involving eleven Congressional declarations.

[Wednesdays]

44. What does the Constitution say about it?

[MasonDreams]

6. This reply has been self-censored.

[wnylib]

10. Kill US citizens when state secrets are involved?

Without judicial oversight?

If this idea is upheld in court, wouldn't that put the entire Trump family in jeopardy?

[Escurumbele]

12. It would put anyone in jeopardy, this is like the "stand your ground"

Kill then lie about the reasons, make up the story, incriminate anyone of doing something, being someone they never were.

This is like a policeman throwing cocaine or any other drug inside your car when you are not looking.

This is insane, this makes all of us expendable and at the mercy of criminals, pawns for shooting practice. This is a way to justify murder.

[wnylib]

21. I fully understand the gravity and

consequences of the DOJ claim. My post about the Trump family being in jeopardy was meant as a comment about the Trumps rather than about the merits of the DOJ claim. I see irony in it, don't you?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

53. The brutal murder of irony was fully televised during the campaign of 2016.

[wnylib]

54. Then call it projection.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

56. Oh, I saw the irony you posted -- maybe its death was greatly exaggerated. :)

[Eyeball_Kid]

36. If upheld, Barr or Trumpy could just employ a "thumbs-down" motion, and "enemy x" is eliminated,

no questions asked. This is like the Roman emperor who is bored with a gladiator. Thumbs-down means release the lions, no questions asked. The "state secrets" qualifier can be applied after the fact.

[Klaralven]

42. I think that the "state secrets" are what information the US knows about him and the sources/methods

Not what information he knows.

In other words, the USG is declining to say whether he was targeted, what they knew about his activities, etc.

[Ferrets are Cool]

11. Does this go all the way up to the pResident?

Or is it just for those who don't look like him? I think we know the answer to that. This is more than horrendous and hideous.

[Arazi]

27. This was while Obama was president. I'd presume it does go up the Presidential level

[rwsanders]

30. Isn't the answer to that "Kennedy"?

[DFW]

13. Putin trained the Trump gang better than we thought. n/t

[lagomorph777]

14. OK. Start with the author of that claim.

Why? Shhhhh - it's a secret.

[getagrip_already]

16. wonder if they are arguing they can kill citizens on us soil, for say, opposing the current regime?

[KPN]

26. A slippery slope makes this moot.

We have already seen the normalization of far too much crime, inhumanity and oppression.

[lillypaddle]

17. Wait. Wut????

[niyad]

18. I had to read the headline twice, then check to see if I was still in the US. WTAFH??????

[Smackdown2019]

19. Constitution Protects US Citizens

US Constitution protects US Citizens, we have trials and rights. Once off US territory, it's a gray area.

Embassies are safe havens when abroad, but they do not protect you if outside the walls of the embassy. Negotiators are the ambassadors and they are limited what they can do.

As for this case, journalists do have rights in war time, but are actually put through training through the US Government in what to do. Anyone can claim and be a journalist, it's being a true one that are entitled as being one. He could of been a true journalist, but he should of went through proper channels before meeting with the enemy. Once you step across the line without notice to your side in a war zone, your own your own.

Remember of one journalist who become to known "Hanoi Jane"?

[HuskyOffset]

25. Sorry, you triggered my grammar Nazi

"could of", "should of" aren't a thing. It's "could have" or its contraction "could've". Same thing for "should of", "would of", etc.

Sorry, but stuff like that is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[Smackdown2019]

28. Mr grammar nazi

I am in my deer stand in 33 degrees watching for deer and using my phone. Forgive me for not being grammar Pleasant to your eyes.

[HuskyOffset]

48. Fair point!

I appreciate your dedication to DU under less than ideal conditions. I probably should have explicitly state that a minor grammatical error in no way diminishes the truth of your post.

[Akacia]

37. You understood what he meant

I do not get why you feel the need to be so critical.

[HuskyOffset]

49. Two points

1) as I tried to explain with my use of “triggered”, this kind of thing gets under my skin a bit, despite not being a big deal, as we all, as you pointed out, knew what he meant. Which leads me to point

2) Speaking only for myself, if people see grammatical errors in my posts, I would prefer them to be pointed out, so I can learn & do better in the future, thus making DU a (very slightly) better place. Or at least a place with better grammar. I mean, we’re not barbarians who don’t know that you can’t use a noun (Democrat) as an adjective, e.g., “Democrat Congress”.

Apologies to any I offended.

[Smackdown2019]

50. English professor by any chance?

SIX points! LOL that was the buck I got this afternoon.


I may speak off the cuff sorta speak, but when I post or respond on here, I usually use my cellphone, as most people do. Computers or laptops are beginning to become part of the past and frankly I sometimes speak into a mic to input my message into the post I reply to. This is a true forum and if you may recall back in the early 2000's there were chatrooms. Not a single grammar nazi lasted more ten minutes in those chatrooms or they were booted out; sometimes crashing your computer system.

Basically what I am saying is,,,,,, relax! Enjoy the forum as we just won the presidency... YAY! We have been fighting trumpers for the past FIVE years, we still have two races in Georgia we must win and that is the focus we should fight on!

[HuskyOffset]

51. Sound advice, I will follow it.

Not an English prof, which means any post I make criticizing someone’s grammar is likely to contain grammar errors, so...ya, hoisted on my own petard for sure.

Congrats on getting your deer, don’t deer hunt myself, so I don’t know how 6 points rates, but no matter how many points, I hear venison is quite tasty, so enjoy!

[ProfessorGAC]

52. I Saw A BIG One Today

Not a hunter, but I know it's bow season around here.
I was driving home from a school about 20 miles west, driving through the country.
Saw a doe & a huge buck. I counted at least 8 points on the rack, and that thing looked 4.5-5 feet tall at the shoulder.
Was across from the trees in a ploughed under field only 20 or 30 yards off the road.
Went to take pic, but when I slowed the car, they bolted.
He was a biggun!

[rwsanders]

33. That is current legal understanding, but I would argue that the intent and purpose of the

Declaration of Independence was to show that those rights protect "all men". The Constitution was just an attempt to show how we were going to implement a government based on those principles. I believe that it was intended to include "all men". We are the U.S.A. not Rome.
That is why I get frustrated with our immigration policies, such as the "wet foot/dry foot" policy used by the USCG to ship refugees back home with no hearing. Once you start drawing lines, things can get bad really fast.

[Klaralven]

41. The Declaration of Independence has no legal effect

It was a propaganda piece intended to get the War of Independence going.

It never had any legal effect. The Articles of Confederation and then the US Constitution were the actual legal founding documents.

[rwsanders]

47. That is the current understanding, but to me it is wrong. We recognize the 4th of July as

"Independence Day" and define it as the day we declared we were independent from England. The treaty in 1783 just was England recognizing that fact. So we have declared it a legal document, but it has never been used that way.

I don't expect my view to become the prevailing or legal view because logic and the law have never been good friends, and we are into a post-constitutional phase anyway. Pushed into the ridiculous by Anton Scalia.

[DeSmet]

20. Yeah that seems kind of unconstitutional but

if the government wins this case I kind of have a list of my own for after 1/20/21.

[malthaussen]

23. Well, it always has had that "power."

It's just, you know, unlawful.

-- Mal

[Harker]

24. I guessed from the headline that someone

was planning a bloodbath before the 20th of January.

[llashram]

31. trump and barr's america

they could quickly, with a quick spin, have all melanin enhanced Americans on that kill list....oh wait, they've already completed that list, 155 years ago.

[Eyeball_Kid]

34. Barr's DOJ is playing "God."

Post-Trump, Barr should be spending a LOT of time in Court-- as a defendant.

[Javaman]

40. and just whom determines what is and what is not a "state secret"?

I think we know the answer to that.

fascism it's what's for breakfast...it tastes like ashes.

[Celerity]

45. the government has the power to kill its citizens without judicial oversight when state secrets are

involved.


Rump might regret this post Presidency, if he tries to leave the country, for, oh, I don't know, a trip to say RUSSIA

lololol

[BComplex]

46. I think Bill Barr needs to be shot for passing state secrets.

Just in case he's thinking about it.

[liberalla]

58. There's probably quite a few in this administration who are guilty of that,

including drumpf himself and Jared. Not enough adjectives to express how this makes me feel.

[pecosbob]

55. It's about due freaking process

Everything in our system of law is based upon this.

[intrepidity]

57. This should concern Trump, who will soon be just a citizen nt