General Discussion

EastKYLiberal

(429 posts)

43. American citizens on paper only. Good thing those of us that aren't terrorists will be fine. nt

Reply to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:54 PM

Feb 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

206 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case For Drone Strikes On Americans - MSNBC [View all] WillyT Feb 2013 OP

Obama White House learned well from its criminal predecessor. MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #1

Focusing On The NRA - More Guns Won't Protect Americans From A Drone Strike cantbeserious Feb 2013 #2

What could possibly go wrong with this? dgibby Feb 2013 #3

I guess the USA is not a Christian Nation after all. Coyotl Feb 2013 #4

Actually, it's "Thou shall not murder." Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #68

In other words, if you are on our enemy list, we can kill you, we decided. Coyotl Feb 2013 #5

+1 HiPointDem Feb 2013 #13

state sanctioned homicide datasuspect Feb 2013 #25

And... WillyT Feb 2013 #6

When you read the memo, what did you disagree with? nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #35

Kick !!! WillyT Feb 2013 #7

Those tribesmen should not inspect the attack site. Drone operators are wont to perform "double taps Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #8

They Cannot Help Themselves... They Are, After All, Human Beings... WillyT Feb 2013 #9

So . . . Le Taz Hot Feb 2013 #10

Oh... If It Was A Republican President... We'd Be Screaming From The Rooftops... WillyT Feb 2013 #11

+1 HiPointDem Feb 2013 #14

Indeed. City Lights Feb 2013 #29

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 message was self-deleted by its author Bonobo Feb 2013 #130

This is something that the right and left should be capable of uniting against. woo me with science Feb 2013 #45

+1 You can see that around here these days for sure... KoKo Feb 2013 #86

EXACTLY! markpkessinger Feb 2013 #92

And where is the burden of proof? Bonobo Feb 2013 #12

And where is the burden of proof of association? Coyotl Feb 2013 #30

And where is the forum for presenting a defense? amandabeech Feb 2013 #64

Mr. Awlaki posted hundreds of videos to Youtube proclaiming his Al Qaeda membership. Rep. Weiner msanthrope Feb 2013 #77

See, that's the nice thing about courts. woo me with science Feb 2013 #98

I don't think anybody is argument that Awlaki is a stand-up guy . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #107

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

Right--and the AUMF of 9/18/2001 is constitutional. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #123

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

This message was self-deleted by its author Bonobo Feb 2013 #132

So much about this pisses me off. First, the Obama Administration has refused to produce this morningfog Feb 2013 #15

What, specifically about the memo do you disagree with? msanthrope Feb 2013 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author Bonobo Feb 2013 #131

It would be defended by the rabid partisans on their team, woo me with science Feb 2013 #47

The White Paper cites Brennen! Holy hell, it just gets worse. morningfog Feb 2013 #16

Sadly, this is about the justification anticipated, "cause we said so". TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #17

This is absolutely insane. Obama is totally AWOL on his constitutional duties LittleBlue Feb 2013 #18

But he'z a constitooshunal lawyeeer!!! Marr Feb 2013 #49

We live in a brave new world... ljm2002 Feb 2013 #19

+99 johnnyreb Feb 2013 #20

+1 gazillion datasuspect Feb 2013 #26

Great post n/t Catherina Feb 2013 #27

... woo me with science Feb 2013 #46

truth empowered post hopemountain Feb 2013 #112

Hear... Hear... WillyT Feb 2013 #117

great post... yes, it IS that bad nt justabob Feb 2013 #128

+Infinity sekha68 Feb 2013 #190

I came across this article recently when I was doing research for a paper davidpdx Feb 2013 #21

Downloaded for later reading. ellisonz Feb 2013 #81

we can't waterboard but assassination is AOK I guess. bubbayugga Feb 2013 #22

Welcome To The "Brave New World"...War "Jetsons" Style... KharmaTrain Feb 2013 #23

There's clearly more to this than the fear of "terra" or an external invasion........ marmar Feb 2013 #24

If GWB did this DU would be on fire right now. Where's the outrage??? NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #28

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

Thank you for your response. bighart Feb 2013 #39

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

So the only problem with GWB was the execution of his terror policies? NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #50

There were many problems with Bush. His drone policies wasn't one of them. msanthrope Feb 2013 #62

It's not ok to torture but it is ok to kill without a trial? Got it. n/t. NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #70

It is constitutional to kill without trial in narrowly defined circumstances. What part of the msanthrope Feb 2013 #74

How do you know its constitutional? There's no judicial review? NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #79

No judicial review of the AUMF of 9/18/2001? Or the memo? What part of the memo msanthrope Feb 2013 #82

No, it is not. The Constitution defines that pretty clearly: WinkyDink Feb 2013 #100

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

We declared actual war on 9/18/2001. It was in all the papers. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #197

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

This message was self-deleted by its author Bonobo Feb 2013 #129

This message was self-deleted by its author Bonobo Feb 2013 #133

Yup, the silence on DU is deafening... choie Feb 2013 #38

What silence? Since you've read the memo, tell us what you disagree with. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #41

How can anyone read the memo if it's confidential? nt LittleBlue Feb 2013 #51

Seriously? The memo was leaked--thus the point of the OP. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #66

No, it's important that the government state the plan and acknowledge it LittleBlue Feb 2013 #71

In other words, you haven't read the memo you are outraged over? nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #75

I've read what was leaked. Do you not understand how important it is LittleBlue Feb 2013 #90

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

The definition of "imminent," for starters. And "assassination." Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #53

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

I'm sorry, but who are you quoting in the first quote? The memo? nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #116

Yes, pages 1 and 2 LittleBlue Feb 2013 #119

Here's a whole thread for you to visit: woo me with science Feb 2013 #55

Thanks, still waiting for a substantive answer on this thread before I venture out. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #69

still asking people to waste their time G_j Feb 2013 #78

I'm asking people to read the memo they are outraged over, and point to where they disagree. msanthrope Feb 2013 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Feb 2013 #89

Indeed. woo me with science Feb 2013 #94

I'm considering voting for a Republican president LittleBlue Feb 2013 #42

Obama is only good for Supreme Court Nominations... NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #52

Criminal, IMO. Hell Hath No Fury Feb 2013 #32

American citizens on paper only. Good thing those of us that aren't terrorists will be fine. nt EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #43

I think that you forgot this: amandabeech Feb 2013 #72

K&R woo me with science Feb 2013 #44

very soon green for victory Feb 2013 #48

Crap like this makes me want to find an actual progressive political party. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #54

It's certainly time to wake up and realize woo me with science Feb 2013 #57

Where's the "like" button on DU? librabear Feb 2013 #114

Obama is not going after innocent people, he is going after terrorists mwrguy Feb 2013 #56

Did GWB deserve the benefit of the doubt? NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #58

Bush and Obama are the same thing now? mwrguy Feb 2013 #60

It is almost a certainty that a Republican will be elected president at some time in the near future amandabeech Feb 2013 #76

That ship has sailed. Waitwhat Feb 2013 #109

Thank you very much Mr. Troll. amandabeech Feb 2013 #140

You're right, this is WORSE THAN BUSH. NOVA_Dem Feb 2013 #83

They are if they behave similarly. Got that? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD SANCTION THIS WinkyDink Feb 2013 #102

No AMERICAN should sanction this! Waitwhat Feb 2013 #111

A-MEN. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #161

This should be something ALL Americans can oppose. woo me with science Feb 2013 #205

Yes, they're the same thing: The President of the United States of America DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #177

Obama is a moral, caring man. Bush was an amoral murderer. n/t mwrguy Feb 2013 #185

Ironic... WillyT Feb 2013 #189

Figure out how to codify that, and you're almost there. DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #192

Name anyone who has ever gone after innocent people (in his eyes) cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #59

GW Bush, for one mwrguy Feb 2013 #61

and as we no longer need courts to decide these things G_j Feb 2013 #73

"in his eyes"???? THAT'S ALL IT TAKES NOW? "IN HIS EYES"??! RIP, CONSTITUTION. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #103

And what do we do when the next Nixon is elected? LittleBlue Feb 2013 #91

I thought "terrorists" were so ascertained by a trial. At least, they used to be. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #101

I hear the drones a hummin, a hummin overhead! Rex Feb 2013 #63

"broader concept of imminence". Is that like "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #67

Re-defining language is the hallmark of a TOTALITARIAN. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #104

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

Apparently, we have many John Yoos. n/t winter is coming Feb 2013 #84

KICK Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #85

Interesting info at the link. bighart Feb 2013 #93

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

Sandy Hook via drone? theaocp Feb 2013 #113

+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

Patrice, woo me with science Feb 2013 #127

You, "stop circling the wagons around the indefensible, based on party alone" patrice Feb 2013 #136

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

HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE ARE TOO MANY?? for your preferred course of action. nt patrice Feb 2013 #157

PROPOSE YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION SCENARIOS. nt patrice Feb 2013 #158

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

Sorry, cannot understand. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #162

I bet the Republicans are drooling over prospects of getting control of this. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #108

Looks like the democrats were drooling more. Waitwhat Feb 2013 #115

You all are constantly saying this shouldn't be about party, then you MAKE it about party. nt patrice Feb 2013 #120

It is wrong, period justabob Feb 2013 #135

And so would be the things that COULD happen if we don't meet our responsibilities to patrice Feb 2013 #137

so we should just kill people because they MIGHT do something, sometime? justabob Feb 2013 #141

Let's see your solution scenario & please distinguish between might and "might". nt patrice Feb 2013 #143

you really don't understand? might = maybe in my post justabob Feb 2013 #150

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

OFGS. Paranoid much? WinkyDink Feb 2013 #166

No, just not willing to PRETEND "Imagine all the people ...". patrice Feb 2013 #183

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

I expect people didn't answer your question because it's absurd and cowardly. Marr Feb 2013 #149

So people's LIVES are expendable, just as long as we pretend that laws are perfect. nt patrice Feb 2013 #165

Can I assume that you supported the Patriot Act? Marr Feb 2013 #167

No. One of my main points here is that some of those who oppose it are also very chary patrice Feb 2013 #184

And your position is no less hypocritical and transparently partisan. Marr Feb 2013 #193

so who is dying RIGHT NOW!!!111!!! if we DON'T KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #187

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

I think the drone 'project' needs a lot of refinement Mutiny In Heaven Feb 2013 #145

Agree. This IS some fucked up stuff, but pretending that there aren't dangers could be worse. patrice Feb 2013 #148

That is a whole lot of sophistry right there. Marr Feb 2013 #152

HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE ARE TOO MANY?? for your preferred course of action. nt patrice Feb 2013 #159

How's that for "sophistry" for you? HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE is what you want worth??? patrice Feb 2013 #160

Hit a nerve? Marr Feb 2013 #163

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

I have no idea what you're talking about. /nt Marr Feb 2013 #194

Because someone made mistakes or outright LIED in the past, does that mean ALL others patrice Feb 2013 #181

Let's Ask Benjamin Franklin... WillyT Feb 2013 #175

Look, WTH are you going on about, with "DEAD PEOPLE"? McVeigh had a trial. Bush WinkyDink Feb 2013 #176

thank you Marr and WinkyDink justabob Feb 2013 #178

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

however many DEAD Iraqis there are KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #186

I'm interested in when Mexico uses drones to take out KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #188

Search "drones US border" and similar and you'll see the US already patrols the Canadian border Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #195

no, I mean drones OWNED & OPERATED BY MEXICO, KakistocracyHater Feb 2013 #196

kick woo me with science Feb 2013 #206