If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   NBC obtains formerly secret memo that lays out the case why the government can assassinate some of its own citizens; with link to actual memo   (openchannel.nbcnews.com) divider line 478
    More: Interesting, NBC News, Justice Department, legal case, Michael Isikoff, Americans, Office of Legal Counsel, targeted killings, right of self-defense  
•       •       •

12126 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 12:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-04 10:25:09 PM
I have no words.
 
2013-02-04 10:28:16 PM
1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.
 
2013-02-04 10:29:52 PM
I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
 
2013-02-04 10:30:51 PM
If this is the memo I'm thinking of, the guy who wrote a lot of this, Marty Lederman, is actually a very nice guy who teaches at my law school. I've chatted with him.

It's very awkward chatting with someone who wrote something like this, when you're not sure if he even believes what he wrote.
 
2013-02-04 10:35:42 PM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


I think the language of it makes your #3 not necessarily a requirement.
 
2013-02-04 10:38:08 PM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.
 
2013-02-04 10:54:15 PM
Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

When this anti-war pussies going to realize that sometimes people need to die, and most the time innocent people dying is worth the cost.
 
2013-02-04 11:05:41 PM
Well it's a lot easier than setting up a fake plane crash in Bermuda.  Oh wait, that was the Qumari Defense Minister, he wasn't a US citizen.
 
2013-02-04 11:08:13 PM
 Having just finished reading it, it's clearly the Awlaki memo. Same three-part test that was leaked to the media: 1) high-ranking U.S. official declares the person an imminent threat to the United States, 2) unable to capture the person, and 3) conduct undertaken within laws of war. The legal justification is... shaky, and mostly argumentative. The authors rest their justification almost entirely on Hamdi, Mathews v. Eldridge, ex parte Quirin, and a "public authority exception" to general laws, and also, on the idea that it's war.
 
2013-02-04 11:12:05 PM
Someone please get Her Winkyness to tweet why the MSM Mainstream Media is apparently asking tougher questions of Obama's administration than her former employer ever managed to?
 
2013-02-04 11:19:32 PM
 
2013-02-04 11:20:04 PM
So, I'm generally a libby lib-lib, but in this case I don't have much problem with the government's finding. Where, exactly, is people's problem with this?

In order to help me clarify, tell me which, if any, of the following scenarios are problematic:

If there's an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

To me these are all roughly equivalent scenarios, and I do not have a problem with any of them. I may have a problem with a specific judgement call the President may make, but not with the general right of the President to make it. Being American doesn't make you immune from being a target if you side with the enemy in a battle (IMHO).
 
2013-02-04 11:29:00 PM
If you don't want to get blown up, don't engage in terrorist activities.

If you don't blow yourself up Uncle Sam will do it for you.
 
2013-02-04 11:35:11 PM

nmrsnr: So, I'm generally a libby lib-lib, but in this case I don't have much problem with the government's finding. Where, exactly, is people's problem with this?

In order to help me clarify, tell me which, if any, of the following scenarios are problematic:

If there's an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

To me these are all roughly equivalent scenarios, and I do not have a problem with any of them. I may have a problem with a specific judgement call the President may make, but not with the general right of the President to make it. Being American doesn't make you immune from being a target if you side with the enemy in a battle (IMHO).


Except none of what you describe is the scenario. The scenario proposed by the memo is:

"If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and we want to kill the American citizen in it, is it okay if we target that American citizen?"
 
2013-02-04 11:39:05 PM
are we still droning on about this crap?
 
2013-02-04 11:42:25 PM

Rincewind53: "If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and we want to kill the American citizen in it, is it okay if we target that American citizen?"


What is the distinction between this and my 4th scenario? Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

How about these:

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and the only person in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the person inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and the only person inside, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the person inside?
 
2013-02-04 11:43:01 PM

zedster: are we still droning on about this crap?


We're pretty much on autopilot at this point.
 
2013-02-04 11:58:18 PM
crypticsatellite: I have no words.


Sounds like wise strategy for avoiding drone attacks, Citizen.
 
2013-02-04 11:58:58 PM

nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?


That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.
 
2013-02-05 12:01:19 AM
ok, and this is controversial because???

I don't much care what kind of intel we have.  If you're in league with these asswits, you deserve to get blown up.
 
2013-02-05 12:02:21 AM

Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.


We already have - see, War, Civil.  Also, Texas, Waco.
 
2013-02-05 12:17:26 AM

WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?


Prove it.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:11 AM

nmrsnr: zedster: are we still droning on about this crap?

We're pretty much on autopilot at this point.


I find myself unmanned by these conversations.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:28 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

We already have - see, War, Civil.  Also, Texas, Waco.


Neither of those examples relates to the question here, which is about targeted killings of American citizens, without trial. The Civil War was a clearly defined war, where killings occurred as they normally do in war; face to face, between uniformed men. Waco was clearly not deliberate targeted killings without trial.
 
2013-02-05 12:20:28 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: ok, and this is controversial because???

I don't much care what kind of intel we have.  If you're in league with these asswits, you deserve to get blown up.


One of the American citizens in question made the horrible crime of creating YouTube videos. Clearly he deserved the death sentence.
 
2013-02-05 12:20:50 AM

GAT_00: WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

Prove it.


Well, pull a gun on a cop or armed soldier.

The law is people who obey it. Being armed in a war zone makes you fair game.
 
2013-02-05 12:22:56 AM

Rincewind53: Neither of those examples relates to the question here, which is about targeted killings of American citizens, without trial. The Civil War was a clearly defined war, where killings occurred as they normally do in war; face to face, between uniformed men. Waco was clearly not deliberate targeted killings without trial.


What about the Whiskey Rebellion?
 
2013-02-05 12:24:27 AM

Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.


Okay, so what about the Al Qaida base in Afghanistan with just the American in it? Okay or not? I don't see how being an American citizen materially changes whether or not the U.S. Government has the right to blow you up or not. Either they have good and just cause to order your death without trial, or they don't, where you were born really doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference.
 
2013-02-05 12:25:53 AM

zedster: What about the Whiskey Rebellion?


An armed response to a rebellion is not the deliberate targeted killing of one person.

From Wiki: Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.[81]
 
2013-02-05 12:25:57 AM
www.personal.psu.edu

The Republican Party that cried "Wolf" has done it once too often. No one will care now. Thanks guys. You were too busy crapping over birth certificates, criticism of farking Nazis, fathering only girls, arugula, dijon mustard, Benghazi and President Obama's Magical Time Machine. Now there is a real job to do calling people on the carpet for a serious "Imperial Presidency" issue that needs to be hashed out in public discourse. And you're completely discredited. Thanks, ASSHOLES.
 
2013-02-05 12:28:07 AM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


Even if you trust this President, what about the next?  Look at how easily Bush and the neocons took down the institutional barriers to government power that had been built up over decades.  It's not hard to envision a future President ordering a drone strike on a target within America in the name of national security.  We have to be very careful at establishing precedent, because once that power is granted it's almost impossible to take it away.
 
2013-02-05 12:29:07 AM

Somacandra: [www.personal.psu.edu image 226x250]

The Republican Party that cried "Wolf" has done it once too often. No one will care now. Thanks guys. You were too busy crapping over birth certificates, criticism of farking Nazis, fathering only girls, arugula, dijon mustard, Benghazi and President Obama's Magical Time Machine. Now there is a real job to do calling people on the carpet for a serious "Imperial Presidency" issue that needs to be hashed out in public discourse. And you're completely discredited. Thanks, ASSHOLES.


How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.  The President doesn't come close to having the authority to execute American citizens without trial.
 
2013-02-05 12:32:30 AM

Rincewind53: zedster: What about the Whiskey Rebellion?

An armed response to a rebellion is not the deliberate targeted killing of one person.

From Wiki: Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.[81]


my bad, I was thinking of Shays' Rebellion but looking back that was pre-constitution

//always finds it funny Tea Party identifies with the Boston Tea Party and not Shays' or Whiskey Rebellion which is more in line with their issues since they do have representation
 
2013-02-05 12:32:43 AM

nmrsnr: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

Okay, so what about the Al Qaida base in Afghanistan with just the American in it? Okay or not? I don't see how being an American citizen materially changes whether or not the U.S. Government has the right to blow you up or not. Either they have good and just cause to order your death without trial, or they don't, where you were born really doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference.


Well, it's about the Due Process clause of the Constitution, which says "...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So any time the United States government deprives an American citizen of life, they need to follow the due process of the law, and many people believe that that would require a trial, and that targeted killings of American citizens outside of immediate battlefield is simply not allowed under the Constitution. This memo argues otherwise, and pegs the "Due Process" on a three part test, allowing such targeted killings against senior-level Al-Qaeda officials when "(1) an informed, high-level official of the United States government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

Then, later in the memo, the author essentially says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, of course, imminent doesn't mean imminent in the sense that the attack is going to occur in the next day or so, but imminent means simply that the Al-Qaeda official is actively plotting against the United States." Which means that by their logic, an informed high-level official of the United States can simply declare that an American citizen is actively plotting violent attack against the United States and have that person killed, without trial, and without judicial review, so long as capture is not feasible.

And some of us have a bit of a problem with that.
 
2013-02-05 12:33:49 AM

Mentat: Even if you trust this President, what about the next?  Look at how easily Bush and the neocons took down the institutional barriers to government power that had been built up over decades.  It's not hard to envision a future President ordering a drone strike on a target within America in the name of national security.  We have to be very careful at establishing precedent, because once that power is granted it's almost impossible to take it away.


It's not about trust. This isn't a blanket license to kill. The three prong test may be broad, but not unlimited. 1) imminent threat, pretty useless, but to even reach this point, Congress needs to pass an Authorized Use of Military Force for the President to even consider a target for striking. 2) Feasability, basically limitiing it only to places where the US doesn't have jurisdiction and doesn't have the cooperation of a friendly government, so we won't be sending drones into Germany. 3) The strike has to be otherwise in keeping with the laws of war, so no undue collateral damage, etc.

You may disagree with the President having this ability, but it's really not that the president can order a drone strike your house because he doesn't like you. It is significantly more strict than that.
 
2013-02-05 12:35:23 AM

Rincewind53: "If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and we want to kill the American citizen in it, is it okay if we target that American citizen?"


It was a convoy in transit, not a static base. And since the Yemeni legal system had previously dictated that he be captured dead or alive, I wonder what the domestic reaction would have been if the Yemenis had got to him first.
 
2013-02-05 12:35:54 AM

Rincewind53: And some of us have a bit of a problem with that.


But not if the dude isn't American? Then it's totally okay?
 
2013-02-05 12:37:11 AM

Somacandra: It was a convoy in transit, not a static base.


I think we both knew that, he was responding to my hypothetical, but do you believe that the distinction that it was a convoy to be material?
 
2013-02-05 12:38:01 AM

GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.


I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.
 
2013-02-05 12:41:21 AM

nmrsnr: But not if the dude isn't American? Then it's totally okay


No. It takes a rather deliberately obtuse reading of my post on the Constitutional issues involved with targeted killings of Americans to imply that I'm totally okay with the targeted killings of non-Americans. It's just that the targeted killings of non-Americans does not raise the same Due Process issues.

Somacandra: It was a convoy in transit, not a static base. And since the Yemeni legal system had previously dictated that he be captured dead or alive, I wonder what the domestic reaction would have been if the Yemenis had got to him first.


I know, but I was using his series of examples. And the Yemeni legal system's dictate isn't really relevant here, since this is entirely about America's actions. Incidentally, we have actually accidentally killed two American citizens in drone strikes: Kamal Derwish in 2002, and Samir Khan at the same time we got Awlaki. Both of those were collateral damage and not targeted killings, and so there has been much less attention paid to them, even though the actual cause of death is identical (death by predator drone).
 
2013-02-05 12:41:42 AM

Mentat: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

Even if you trust this President, what about the next?  Look at how easily Bush and the neocons took down the institutional barriers to government power that had been built up over decades.  It's not hard to envision a future President ordering a drone strike on a target within America in the name of national security.  We have to be very careful at establishing precedent, because once that power is granted it's almost impossible to take it away.


Then what are we to do?

Should we keep them in play plotting or do we capture them with the possibility of even more lives lost than originally planned?

I understand the "give an inch and they take a foot" philosophy. That is what I believe on many things. Thing is is that it is happening in a warzone area. It is war and we are dealing with a very motivated enemy. These people are in active treason against the US. US constitution clearly gives the President power how to deal with this situation.
 
2013-02-05 12:42:15 AM

nmrsnr: I think we both knew that, he was responding to my hypothetical, but do you believe that the distinction that it was a convoy to be material?


You were setting out the scenario of what this "actually pertained" to--that's not really a hypothetical. I do think its material. Its a lot easier to pinpoint strike a specific figure from a distance in a line of vehicles than a specific figure inside any kind of reinforced base. The collateral damage (and therefore damage to multiple possible Americans who might or might not be targets) will necessarily be larger in the latter case.
 
2013-02-05 12:44:35 AM

Rincewind53: And the Yemeni legal system's dictate isn't really relevant here, since this is entirely about America's actions.


Depending on the legal agreement that exists between the countries, its not irrelevant. If certain contingent commitments are made and the conditions that trigger those commitments are reached, then the follow-through it does indeed matter as a principle of international law too.
 
2013-02-05 12:47:44 AM

Rincewind53: No. It takes a rather deliberately obtuse reading of my post on the Constitutional issues involved with targeted killings of Americans to imply that I'm totally okay with the targeted killings of non-Americans. It's just that the targeted killings of non-Americans does not raise the same Due Process issues.


Which is kind of my point, you're hinging your argument on whether or not the target is American, I'm arguing that, in the abstract (that is, what power the President should be capable of wielding), whether or not the target is American is irrelevant. If it's okay to target people in a base (or a convoy, for Somacandra) then it's okay to target people.

So I'm going to ask again, which scenarios do you have issue with (and not have a legal argument for) targeting people in Afghanistan, targeting people in Yemen, Targeting an American in Afghanistan, or targeting an American in Yemen? And, if you are not against all of them, what distinction are you seeing that I'm not, because to me, they all seem pretty similar.
 
2013-02-05 12:48:32 AM

cman: These people are in active treason against the US.


Is it actually treason? Treason is defined in the Constution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

Is plotting to blow up a shopping mall "levying war against [the United States]"? Was Timothy McVeigh guilty of treason? How about Adam Lanza? Both employed tactics directly used by Al-Qaeda.  Is Al-Qaeda the kind of "enemy" envisioned by the Founders? Surely they meant enemy nation-states, not political groups.
 
2013-02-05 12:49:28 AM

Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.


How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?
 
2013-02-05 12:52:06 AM

Somacandra: Depending on the legal agreement that exists between the countries, its not irrelevant. If certain contingent commitments are made and the conditions that trigger those commitments are reached, then the follow-through it does indeed matter as a principle of international law too.


Okay, you're right, the third part of the proposed test (dictates of international law) do make the Yemeni law relevant.

nmrsnr: Which is kind of my point, you're hinging your argument on whether or not the target is American, I'm arguing that, in the abstract (that is, what power the President should be capable of wielding), whether or not the target is American is irrelevant. If it's okay to target people in a base (or a convoy, for Somacandra) then it's okay to target people.

So I'm going to ask again, which scenarios do you have issue with (and not have a legal argument for) targeting people in Afghanistan, targeting people in Yemen, Targeting an American in Afghanistan, or targeting an American in Yemen? And, if you are not against all of them, what distinction are you seeing that I'm not, because to me, they all seem pretty similar.


I'm against drone strikes in general. I believe them to be ineffective in the grand scheme, creating more enemies as a side effect of their use than are killed by their intended use. I think the use of drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, and other countries, is often a violation of territorial sovereignty forced on other countries through muscle.

That being said, I believe that drone strikes targeting foreign nationals does not raise the same kind of Constitutional questions as drone strikes targeting American citizens, and that the latter are accorded more protection under the laws of the United States as a result of our Constitution, the document we are supposedly protecting through the Global War on Terror.
 
2013-02-05 12:52:28 AM

DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?


No.

It is new.   Amazing that 0bama is more like Dick Cheney than Dick is.
 
2013-02-05 12:53:22 AM

GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?


I think his point was to use sarcasm to point out that the Left in America has been against this from day frickin' one. After the killing of Bin Laden, Noam Chomsky called Obama a worse terrorist than Bin Laden. There were also howls of outrage on the Left about Awlaki's killing.
 
2013-02-05 12:54:12 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?

No.

It is new.   Amazing that 0bama is more like Dick Cheney than Dick is.


It's not new, but you knew that. The only new thing is that the legal document justifying the policy was released to the press.
 
2013-02-05 12:54:51 AM
nmrsnr:

If there is an Al Qaida a buildingbase in Yemen, and there is only oneperson inside, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the person inside?

FTFY so you can understand the issue.
 
2013-02-05 12:55:43 AM

Rincewind53: I think his point was to use sarcasm to point out that the Left in America has been against this from day frickin' one.


Bull farking shiat.  There was about 20 people pissed off, and Chomsky got yelled at by what is supposedly the left.
 
2013-02-05 12:56:23 AM
So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.
 
2013-02-05 12:57:14 AM

GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?


I have to applaud you for taking a stand for your principles here. I agree with you, regardless of who is President - he/she should not be deciding who to "take out" unilaterally, period.

Far too many on the Politics tab are polarized political hacks:  "Bush? Drone strikes? EEVILLLLL!"  "Obama? Drone strikes? Eh, they had it coming and he's doing a good job. Non-story."
 
2013-02-05 12:57:15 AM

Rincewind53: tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?

No.

It is new.   Amazing that 0bama is more like Dick Cheney than Dick is.

It's not new, but you knew that. The only new thing is that the legal document justifying the policy was released to the press.


You are lying again.
It was not "released to the press".
"It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly. "
 
2013-02-05 12:57:32 AM

GAT_00: Rincewind53: I think his point was to use sarcasm to point out that the Left in America has been against this from day frickin' one.

Bull farking shiat.  There was about 20 people pissed off, and Chomsky got yelled at by what is supposedly the left.


If you honestly think that the Left in America does not oppose drone strikes and hasn't been pretty vocal about it, then you haven't been following the Left.

Or perhaps you mean liberals. Because liberals are fairly centrist and generally don't oppose drone strikes. But if you mean liberals, and not the Left, then why didn't you just say so?
 
2013-02-05 12:59:07 AM

miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.


The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.
 
2013-02-05 12:59:42 AM
I thought NBC was in the tank for Obama.  Why would they want to embarrass their Obamessiah like this?
 
2013-02-05 12:59:56 AM

Rincewind53: cman: These people are in active treason against the US.

Is it actually treason? Treason is defined in the Constution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "

Is plotting to blow up a shopping mall "levying war against [the United States]"? Was Timothy McVeigh guilty of treason? How about Adam Lanza? Both employed tactics directly used by Al-Qaeda.  Is Al-Qaeda the kind of "enemy" envisioned by the Founders? Surely they meant enemy nation-states, not political groups.


I agree, they could have never envisioned non-state terror cells.  But, they do exist, and people subscribe to their mentality.  They have, over time, formed their own identity as a collective group, and are no different than a formalized army with a banner to wave in front of them.
 
2013-02-05 01:00:12 AM

miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.


The memo does make it clear that its legal rationale only applies to  senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, not just any person belonging to a terrorist organization.
 
2013-02-05 01:01:21 AM
So only think of the children who are in class coloring in the lines who get shot by an AR and not the children who live in the same house as the target and get blown up by a Hellfire?

Are the children arbitrary or relative?
 
2013-02-05 01:01:36 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Rincewind53: tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?

No.

It is new.   Amazing that 0bama is more like Dick Cheney than Dick is.

It's not new, but you knew that. The only new thing is that the legal document justifying the policy was released to the press.

You are lying again.
It was not "released to the press".
"It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly. "


So, basically, someone(s) on the Judiciary and/or Intelligence committees leaked classified information to the press.

Nice job, idiots.
 
2013-02-05 01:01:52 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: Rincewind53: I think his point was to use sarcasm to point out that the Left in America has been against this from day frickin' one.

Bull farking shiat.  There was about 20 people pissed off, and Chomsky got yelled at by what is supposedly the left.

If you honestly think that the Left in America does not oppose drone strikes and hasn't been pretty vocal about it, then you haven't been following the Left.

Or perhaps you mean liberals. Because liberals are fairly centrist and generally don't oppose drone strikes. But if you mean liberals, and not the Left, then why didn't you just say so?


Your definitions are reversed from mine.  The Left is the Democratic party.  Liberals are people like Chomsky, Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.

There is nothing "liberal" about the Democratic Party except neoliberalism, yet another misnomer of a name in the American political lexicon.
 
2013-02-05 01:02:01 AM

GAT_00: The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.


No. See my previous post. The memo makes it clear that the it only applies to  senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations whose capture is not possible. The scenario you propose is 100% different.
 
2013-02-05 01:02:41 AM
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission
 
2013-02-05 01:02:55 AM
dissentingdemocrat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-05 01:03:22 AM

GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?


If we have reliable intel that you have become a senior level AQ operative, you pretty much gave up your passport a long time ago.
 
2013-02-05 01:03:48 AM

GAT_00: Your definitions are reversed from mine.  The Left is the Democratic party.  Liberals are people like Chomsky, Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.

There is nothing "liberal" about the Democratic Party except neoliberalism, yet another misnomer of a name in the American political lexicon.


Well, okay, then we don't disagree, since we both use different words to describe the same thing. I've just never heard liberals being described as to the left of leftists. Normally the spectrum goes leftist<--liberal--<centrist.

But since it's a definitional issue, there's no disagreement between us.
 
2013-02-05 01:04:07 AM

Giltric: So only think of the children who are in class coloring in the lines who get shot by an AR and not the children who live in the same house as the target and get blown up by a Hellfire?

Are the children arbitrary or relative?


Your concern for children is touching.
 
2013-02-05 01:04:20 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.

No. See my previous post. The memo makes it clear that the it only applies to  senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations whose capture is not possible. The scenario you propose is 100% different.


The memo said an American can be killed without trial, without proof of their crimes, on the order of the President.  Their position is irrelevant.
 
2013-02-05 01:05:37 AM
I'm a dirty pinko commie socialist libtard and even I have a hard time getting worked up over it.
 
2013-02-05 01:06:13 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: Your definitions are reversed from mine.  The Left is the Democratic party.  Liberals are people like Chomsky, Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.

There is nothing "liberal" about the Democratic Party except neoliberalism, yet another misnomer of a name in the American political lexicon.

Well, okay, then we don't disagree, since we both use different words to describe the same thing. I've just never heard liberals being described as to the left of leftists. Normally the spectrum goes leftist<--liberal--<centrist.

But since it's a definitional issue, there's no disagreement between us.


I've always thought of the left as a general ideology, vague and unspecified.  Liberals are the ones who drive it.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: If we have reliable intel that you have become a senior level AQ operative, you pretty much gave up your passport a long time ago.


No, you don't.  What's more, we can't prove that because he wasn't given a trial.
 
2013-02-05 01:07:25 AM

Rincewind53: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The memo does make it clear that its legal rationale only applies to  senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, not just any person belonging to a terrorist organization.


True, but how do they define "senior operational leader"? Is it based on how many underlings they have working for them? How long they've been in the organization? How close their reserved parking space is to the camp?
 
2013-02-05 01:07:26 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: So only think of the children who are in class coloring in the lines who get shot by an AR and not the children who live in the same house as the target and get blown up by a Hellfire?

Are the children arbitrary or relative?

Your concern for children is touching.



Doesn't seem like you are concerned for them anymore, so someone has to pick up the slack.

Banning firearms is just like domestic drone strikes...neither one will save a childs life.
 
2013-02-05 01:07:54 AM
Just one question.

When does the "War On Terror" end?  Who is a "terrorist," and why should an accusation of terrorism carry any more judicial weight, by its mere utterance, than an accusation of bank robbery or jaywalking?

Which "terrorists" are authorized to sign an armistice in this "war," or to sue for peace on behalf of their organization?
 
2013-02-05 01:08:09 AM
"The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,"  he said.
But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that  no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike.


Come again?  I'm disturbed by this reporter's abject failure to read the quote he typed directly before his own half-assed comment.
 
2013-02-05 01:08:43 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I thought NBC was in the tank for Obama.  Why would they want to embarrass their Obamessiah like this?


Sweeps.
 
2013-02-05 01:08:44 AM

GAT_00: The memo said an American can be killed without trial, without proof of their crimes, on the order of the President.  Their position is irrelevant.


Uh.... no. Read the memo before you say something that's proven wrong in the first damn paragraph.

"This memo sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force  in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen  who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated force of Al-Qaeda--that is, an Al-Qaeda  leader... This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful;  nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..."
 
2013-02-05 01:09:18 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?

If we have reliable intel that you have become a senior level AQ operative, you pretty much gave up your passport a long time ago.



Grand Moff sounds like a title a senior operative would have.
 
2013-02-05 01:09:25 AM
Huh and here I've always thought that taking up arms against the US government makes you an enemy of the US government and that the US government, its legislators & military are duty bound to take you out.  "All threats, foreign and domestic", blah, blah.

I don't have a problem with the government / military targeting American citizens if they are active enemy combatants and I'm a dirty dirty lib.
 
2013-02-05 01:10:25 AM

Man On Pink Corner: When does the "War On Terror" end? Who is a "terrorist," and why should an accusation of terrorism carry any more judicial weight, by its mere utterance, than an accusation of bank robbery or jaywalking?


False equivalence is false.
 
2013-02-05 01:10:47 AM
Oh look. It's time to try and make liberals feel guilty for voting for Obama again!

Did so well the last time.
 
2013-02-05 01:10:59 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: The memo said an American can be killed without trial, without proof of their crimes, on the order of the President.  Their position is irrelevant.

Uh.... no. Read the memo before you say something that's proven wrong in the first damn paragraph.

"This memo sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force  in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen  who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated force of Al-Qaeda--that is, an Al-Qaeda  leader... This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful;  nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..."


The precedent has been clearly established.
 
2013-02-05 01:11:29 AM
I want so badly to watch this thread but I'm out of popcorn and liquor.
 
2013-02-05 01:11:34 AM

whidbey: Oh look. It's time to try and make liberals feel guilty for voting for Obama again!

Did so well the last time.


I didn't vote for Obama in November, so...
 
2013-02-05 01:12:34 AM

miss diminutive: True, but how do they define "senior operational leader"? Is it based on how many underlings they have working for them? How long they've been in the organization? How close their reserved parking space is to the camp?


The closest to a definition I can directly find is on Page 8, paragraph 2, where it says "an individual poses an 'imminent threat' against the United States where is an operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force and is  personally and continually involved in the planning of terrorist attacks against the United States."

There may be another definition in there I'm missing.
 
2013-02-05 01:12:50 AM

Giltric: Grand_Moff_Joseph: GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?

If we have reliable intel that you have become a senior level AQ operative, you pretty much gave up your passport a long time ago.


Grand Moff sounds like a title a senior operative would have.


lulz.  Increase firepower to the forward batteries - I don't want anything to get through.
 
2013-02-05 01:12:53 AM
It is the absence of a check and balance, not the existence of the policy.
 
2013-02-05 01:13:08 AM
It's only a big deal because the GOP is worried that someone might look at what they've been doing for the last 4 years and decide that it fits the description of economic treason.
 
2013-02-05 01:13:53 AM
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-02-05 01:14:47 AM
I find any inconvenience of anyone to be outrageous and demand the destruction of the inconveniencerer.
 
2013-02-05 01:14:55 AM

GAT_00: whidbey: Oh look. It's time to try and make liberals feel guilty for voting for Obama again!

Did so well the last time.

I didn't vote for Obama in November, so...


Actually he still won.  Overwhelmingly.
 
2013-02-05 01:15:07 AM
1 - Are they hanging out with the enemy?  If "no", stop.  If "yes", continue.

2 - Are they operating as our spy or as a journalist?  If "no", then continue.  If "yes", stop.

3 - Are they being held prisoner by said enemy?  If "no", then bombs away.  If "yes", stop.

Seems simple enough to me.
 
2013-02-05 01:16:24 AM

GAT_00: The precedent has been clearly established.


Dude. I thought liberals were against slippery slope arguments. You've jumped so far down that slope it's like an right-winger saying "If it's legal for gays to have sex with each other, then it's legal for gays to steal your children and forcibly rape them in front of their parents." After all, the precedent has been clearly established.

I thought more of you. This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is  absurd.
 
2013-02-05 01:19:49 AM
I wonder if the uber-patriotic preppers and teabaggers will complain about this.
 
2013-02-05 01:20:13 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: The memo said an American can be killed without trial, without proof of their crimes, on the order of the President.  Their position is irrelevant.

Uh.... no. Read the memo before you say something that's proven wrong in the first damn paragraph.

"This memo sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force  in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen  who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated force of Al-Qaeda--that is, an Al-Qaeda  leader... This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful;  nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances..."


You are wrong.
All you need to do is accuse someone is a "senior operational leader" of a group that you claim to be is an "affiliated force" of Al-Qaeda.

That description could easily fit the description of the Time Square (attempted) bomber. In an organization that is organized as cells, he is a leader of his cell and he clearly was affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
 
2013-02-05 01:20:19 AM

Rincewind53: This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is absurd.


To be fair, though, this is what happens we we allow a Presidency like the Bush administration to lie to the American public and launch an all-out illegal unjustified war.  The result has been fallout for over a decade, even after the conflicts are supposedly winding down.

It's long out of the bottle.
 
2013-02-05 01:20:33 AM

miss diminutive: Lionel Mandrake: I thought NBC was in the tank for Obama.  Why would they want to embarrass their Obamessiah like this?

Sweeps.


Must be...hell, Michael Isikoff was even on with Comrade Rachel Maddow (did you know that she's gay?)  talking about all of this stuff, even though I've been told that MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that they never criticize him.  I guess Obama's checks to the lamestream drive-by liberal MSM media bounced this month.
 
2013-02-05 01:21:49 AM

Weaver95: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.


yep
 
2013-02-05 01:22:02 AM

zedster: Rincewind53: Neither of those examples relates to the question here, which is about targeted killings of American citizens, without trial. The Civil War was a clearly defined war, where killings occurred as they normally do in war; face to face, between uniformed men. Waco was clearly not deliberate targeted killings without trial.

What about the Whiskey Rebellion?


You had me at "Whiskey"
 
2013-02-05 01:23:07 AM

Lionel Mandrake: miss diminutive: Lionel Mandrake: I thought NBC was in the tank for Obama.  Why would they want to embarrass their Obamessiah like this?

Sweeps.

Must be...hell, Michael Isikoff was even on with Comrade Rachel Maddow (did you know that she's gay?)  talking about all of this stuff, even though I've been told that MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that they never criticize him.  I guess Obama's checks to the lamestream drive-by liberal MSM media bounced this month.


+1
 
2013-02-05 01:23:10 AM

whidbey: Rincewind53: This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is absurd.

To be fair, though, this is what happens we we allow a Presidency like the Bush administration to lie to the American public and launch an all-out illegal unjustified war.  The result has been fallout for over a decade, even after the conflicts are supposedly winding down.

It's long out of the bottle.


I agree. The Iraq war was a complete and utter disaster.

Now, what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
 
2013-02-05 01:23:20 AM
Allow me to preempt the derp:

Derp: "Why is this a problem? If you're trying to kill 'MERICANS, you DESERVE TO DIE!"

Answer: WHO said you were trying to kill anyone? Some nameless official? Have they proved it? Have they indicted you? Is there evidence? What if they are wrong? What if they have the wrong person? Has the US Government ever made a mistake? Assuming the guilty are dead--because only the guilty would be targeted--is called "begging the question."

Derp: "Hasn't this been the rule for a while? Why get upset now, lib-tards?"

Answer: The fact that this horrible policy has been drip-fed to the media over the past 4 years does not refute its awfulness or its illegality. This is a non-sequitur.

Derp: "What's the big deal? More people died in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. so I refuse to care about this."

Answer: Let me rephrase: "I refuse to service this faulty airplane engine because no one I know has been killed yet and there have been worse accidents in the past." Perhaps if we let the government lawlessly assassinate people today, there will be bigger, worse abuses and wars in the future and THEN you can get interested. Or we can address the problem now. Your choice.

Derp: "Whatever it takes to keep us SAFE FROM THE TERR'ISTS!!!!"

Answer: You are about 10,000 times more likely to die in a household accident than a terrorist attack in America. If you are willing to give the government carte blanche to assassinate any citizen accused (anonymously) of being "associated" with terrorists in the "recent" past with NO evidence... just to protect yourself from a risk approximately 500 times lesser than that of getting electrocuted while shaving, then you are a coward of the first order or else bad at statistics or else both.

Derp: "But... it's OBAMA. It's OK! It's OBAAAAMAAAAAAA"

Answer: Liberal derp is still derp. Someday someone else will be president. What will (s)he do with that power?
 
2013-02-05 01:24:46 AM

Bucky Katt: Weaver95: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.

yep


The definition of treason is literally written into the Constitution. Also, this memo does not in any way base its rationale off of treason. Treason is irrelevant to the point at hand.
 
2013-02-05 01:25:12 AM

saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.


Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.
 
2013-02-05 01:27:20 AM

whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.


Remind me, what is my stance?
 
2013-02-05 01:27:34 AM
Wow I will admit that I didn't read the full thread but the Fark derp is in full effect these days.  If a person knowingly sides with an enemy they are no longer a citizen.  How is this in question?
 
2013-02-05 01:27:38 AM

Rincewind53: whidbey: Rincewind53: This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is absurd.

To be fair, though, this is what happens we we allow a Presidency like the Bush administration to lie to the American public and launch an all-out illegal unjustified war.  The result has been fallout for over a decade, even after the conflicts are supposedly winding down.

It's long out of the bottle.

I agree. The Iraq war was a complete and utter disaster.

Now, what does that have to do with the issue at hand?


I'm saying we really don't have a choice but to finish the job Bush dragged us into.   That's why we're still there.
 
2013-02-05 01:27:57 AM

Rincewind53: GAT_00: The precedent has been clearly established.

Dude. I thought liberals were against slippery slope arguments. You've jumped so far down that slope it's like an right-winger saying "If it's legal for gays to have sex with each other, then it's legal for gays to steal your children and forcibly rape them in front of their parents." After all, the precedent has been clearly established.

I thought more of you. This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is  absurd.


It's because the direct military power of the American executive has been increasing steadily.  It's a crossed bridge that means the next time this has to go a little further, it will seem reasonable compared to past actions.  It has little to no checks on it anymore, as Congressional approval is largely symbolic now.  The increasing capability of our power to strike against individuals at a whim is also growing.  It represents a symbolic point from which American history suggests no return, because there is no precedent for American executive vacating power.  Once it is done once, it becomes commonplace.  Hence how drone strikes against an individual fell below being noteworthy, now we have the first example of a strike used against an American.  It is a dangerous point.

It's now simple to write a similar memo targeting any other American we regard as a problem abroad.  The singular justification exists, and it is used.  Once it becomes commonplace, the potential for a higher act becomes more justifiable, because it no longer seems so far down the hole.
 
2013-02-05 01:28:43 AM

saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?


You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.
 
2013-02-05 01:28:52 AM
Hell not even the dumbest liebutturd thinks these cocksuckers are hanging out with Al Qaeda because they're trick or treating for UNICEF. If you join even a friendly merc group like the French Foreign Legion you forfeit your citizenship then these people are no longer citizens and it's a moot point. Add to that the fact they're either enemy combatants or traitors depending on your point of view, I think they're both, then there's no problem dispatching them as such.
 
2013-02-05 01:29:33 AM

Somacandra: [www.personal.psu.edu image 226x250]

The Republican Party that cried "Wolf" has done it once too often. No one will care now. Thanks guys. You were too busy crapping over birth certificates, criticism of farking Nazis, fathering only girls, arugula, dijon mustard, Benghazi and President Obama's Magical Time Machine. Now there is a real job to do calling people on the carpet for a serious "Imperial Presidency" issue that needs to be hashed out in public discourse. And you're completely discredited. Thanks, ASSHOLES.


Yea, figures that this is the card that would be blamed. It's the Republican's fault for what Democrats do because Republicans.


GAT_00: How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens? How does everyone not have a problem with that?


Because Republicans.

The whole problem with this is there's no review of what is legal when it comes to killing an American by order of the president. It sets up a bad precedent when it's so unilateral even when the guy is a bad dude. While we all may agree the guy was an enemy, there should be some mechanism to check such a power. I think it may be time to directly codify the war powers that allow such in the Constitution. And with all the lefties who callously throw out "traitor" and "enemy of the state" towards the GOP, I'm not comfortable with them having that power due to their zeal to use it.
 
2013-02-05 01:30:13 AM

nmrsnr: Mentat: Even if you trust this President, what about the next?  Look at how easily Bush and the neocons took down the institutional barriers to government power that had been built up over decades.  It's not hard to envision a future President ordering a drone strike on a target within America in the name of national security.  We have to be very careful at establishing precedent, because once that power is granted it's almost impossible to take it away.

It's not about trust. This isn't a blanket license to kill. The three prong test may be broad, but not unlimited. 1) imminent threat, pretty useless, but to even reach this point, Congress needs to pass an Authorized Use of Military Force for the President to even consider a target for striking. 2) Feasability, basically limitiing it only to places where the US doesn't have jurisdiction and doesn't have the cooperation of a friendly government, so we won't be sending drones into Germany. 3) The strike has to be otherwise in keeping with the laws of war, so no undue collateral damage, etc.

You may disagree with the President having this ability, but it's really not that the president can order a drone strike your house because he doesn't like you. It is significantly more strict than that.


If there's one thing we learned during the Bush Administration, it's that the law can be used to justify anything until it becomes inconvenient, then you just ignore it.  Do you think a future Dick Cheney is going to be deterred by a piece of paper?  That's why you have to be so careful setting precedent.
 
2013-02-05 01:31:54 AM

GAT_00: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.


No. First because capturing them would be a police action, and the police are not part of the US forces this memo relates to. Second, because that would not be pursuant to the laws of war, which are different for US troops when undertaken domestically, and which do not include conducting war at the order of senior government officials no matter how many memo's they have.

Not saying this memo is good in general, just that it in no way could be used to conduct a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil.
 
2013-02-05 01:33:12 AM

arentol: GAT_00: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.

No. First because capturing them would be a police action, and the police are not part of the US forces this memo relates to. Second, because that would not be pursuant to the laws of war, which are different for US troops when undertaken domestically, and which do not include conducting war at the order of senior government officials no matter how many memo's they have.

Not saying this memo is good in general, just that it in no way could be used to conduct a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil.



yet.
 
2013-02-05 01:34:23 AM

BafflerMeal: Not saying this memo is good in general, just that it in no way could be used to conduct a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil.


yet.


Do you really think some madman of a President would refer to this memo to accomplish such a task?

Tinfoil.  I think I hear it calling.
 
2013-02-05 01:34:37 AM

Sweet Zombi Jesus: Wow I will admit that I didn't read the full thread but the Fark derp is in full effect these days.  If a person knowingly sides with an enemy they are no longer a citizen.  How is this in question?


Is that an actual law, or just a thing people use to make themselves feel better?
 
2013-02-05 01:35:25 AM

whidbey: saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?

You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.


Stupid is as stupid does. The last 4 presidential elections should be proof enough of that.
 
2013-02-05 01:37:12 AM

Mrbogey: And with all the lefties who callously throw out "traitor" and "enemy of the state" towards the GOP, I'm not comfortable with them having that power due to their zeal to use it.


I'm not sure what's more laughable, your shameless whiteknighting of the most morally bankrupt political party in history, or your paranoia regarding what "all the lefties" are going to do, as if  Democrats are "lefties" to begin with.
 
2013-02-05 01:37:23 AM

whidbey: BafflerMeal: Not saying this memo is good in general, just that it in no way could be used to conduct a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil.


yet.

Do you really think some madman of a President would refer to this memo to accomplish such a task?

Tinfoil.  I think I hear it calling.


Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A
 
2013-02-05 01:37:42 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Sweet Zombi Jesus: Wow I will admit that I didn't read the full thread but the Fark derp is in full effect these days.  If a person knowingly sides with an enemy they are no longer a citizen.  How is this in question?

Is that an actual law, or just a thing people use to make themselves feel better?


Actual law.
 
2013-02-05 01:38:27 AM

Mentat: If there's one thing we learned during the Bush Administration, it's that the law can be used to justify anything until it becomes inconvenient, then you just ignore it.  Do you think a future Dick Cheney is going to be deterred by a piece of paper?  That's why you have to be so careful setting precedent.


Well, which is it? Either this memo is horrifying because it sets a dangerous precedent, or it's utterly meaningless because a tyrant will simply ignore the laws and not be deterred by any piece of paper. You can't have it both ways.
 
2013-02-05 01:39:06 AM

ElLoco: whidbey: saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?

You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.

Stupid is as stupid does. The last 4 presidential elections should be proof enough of that.


If you're talking about Bush not actually being elected,  foolhardily getting re-elected, Sarah Palin and Mittens, I would agree.   Otherwise, that is a very cryptic comment you're making.
 
2013-02-05 01:39:41 AM

Sweet Zombi Jesus: Wow I will admit that I didn't read the full thread but the Fark derp is in full effect these days.  If a person knowingly sides with an enemy they are no longer a citizen.  How is this in question?


What is "siding"? Taking up arms? Sending money? Writing a favorable comment on YouTube that gets 10,000 up votes? Does criticizing US forces count, if you don't advocate violence? What if you DO advocate violence, but not directly against the US? What if you advocate violence against a US ally in Saudi Arabia? What about against an ally in Libya (i.e. Kadaffi in 2008).

Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

What is an "associated force"? Would contributing to Wikileaks count if the government said it was a hostile organization?

What does it mean to do something "knowingly"? What if you wrote a short story, meant to be fiction, that was interpreted as a call to action by a violent kid somewhere who cited you and blew up a bus? What if you donated to a cause that was LATER determined to have been a terrorist group for many years prior, including when you donated? See MEK.

And finally: Who decides these things? A court? A judge? A nameless official looking at your name in a binder somewhere?

Does Sweet Zombi Jesus decide?

"How is this in question?" Christ, man, how is this anything but a LONG SERIES OF HUGE QUESTIONS?

Are you really as incurious, unimaginative, and trusting of the government as you try to sound? And are you actually accusing OTHER people of derp?
 
2013-02-05 01:40:05 AM
I have no problem with this.
 
2013-02-05 01:40:44 AM

WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

When this anti-war pussies going to realize that sometimes people need to die, and most the time innocent people dying is worth the cost.


So Jefferson saying dissent is the greatest form of patriotism now means I renounce my citizenship?

I can't tell if I'm the confused derp, or you failed to get your point across.
 
2013-02-05 01:42:54 AM

GAT_00:
It's because the direct military power of the American executive has been increasing steadily.  It's a crossed bridge that means the next time this has to go a little further, it will seem reasonable compared to past actions.  It has little to no checks on it anymore, as Congressional approval is largely symbolic now.  The increasing capability of our power to strike against individuals at a whim is also growing.  It represents a symbolic point from which American history suggests no return, because there is no precedent for American executive vacating power.  Once it is done once, it becomes commonplace.  Hence how drone strikes against an individual fell below being noteworthy, now we have the first example of a strike used against an American.  It is a dangerous point.

It's now simple to write a similar memo targeting any other American we regard as a problem abroad.  The singular justification exists, and it is used.  Once it becomes commonplace, the potential for a higher act becomes more justifiable, because it no longer seems so far down the hole.


Because A, therefore B, C, D... X, Y, Z, is a very weak argument. You act as if this memo is somehow dispositive on the issue, as if because we killed Awlaki, the next thing, we're killing Americans on American soil with drone strikes.

As Justice Scalia would say, that's "Reduction ad absurdum", and I recall you coming down rather hard against him for his use of it.
 
2013-02-05 01:43:28 AM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"


No, just cold blood murder.

2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.

Yeah, plenty biatched at Lincoln.  He jailed thousands of Union disloyalists and critics without trial and tortured them with water.  Sound famliar?

3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

Right, so..  you read this document.  Be prepared to be targeted, traitor.  You've put our troops at risk with this newfound knowledge.
 
2013-02-05 01:45:04 AM
Reductio. Not reduction. Stupid autocorrect
 
2013-02-05 01:45:44 AM
Smoke and mirrors, stripes and stars
Stolen for the cross in the name of God
Bloodshed, genocide, rape and fraud
Written to the pages of the law, good lord
The Cold Continent latch key child
Ran away one day and started acting foul
King of where the wild things are, daddy's proud
cause the Roman Empire done passed it down
Imported and tortured a work force
and never healed the wounds or shook the curse off
Now the grown up Goliath nation
Holdin open auditions for the part of David, can you feel it?
Nothing can save ya, you question the reign
You get rushed in and chained up
Fist raised but I must be insane
cos I can't figure a single goddamn way to change it

Welcome to the United Snakes
Land of the thief home of the slave
The grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred and power is God
 
2013-02-05 01:45:52 AM
This thread: Exhibit A for how far right the Democratic party has been dragged.
Ironically, some of the only compassionate liberals left in Washington are the religious types i.e. the Quakers and other left-leaning pacifistic church denominations. The "new" left could learn a lot from them.
 
2013-02-05 01:46:02 AM
saburai:
Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

Dont forget Occupy Wall Street.  I hear those guys want to blow up bridges because the FBI says so.
 
2013-02-05 01:46:57 AM

whidbey: I'm not sure what's more laughable, your shameless whiteknighting of the most morally bankrupt political party in history...


That bad? Man, Obama should just order them executed. Of course, the trick is waiting till they leave the country so as to justify it.
 
2013-02-05 01:47:06 AM

Weaver95: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.


Definitely - there are far too many times in history when those speaking against government actions have been construed as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the US.
 
2013-02-05 01:47:13 AM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


Oh really?

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-05 01:48:11 AM

Rincewind53: Mentat: If there's one thing we learned during the Bush Administration, it's that the law can be used to justify anything until it becomes inconvenient, then you just ignore it.  Do you think a future Dick Cheney is going to be deterred by a piece of paper?  That's why you have to be so careful setting precedent.

Well, which is it? Either this memo is horrifying because it sets a dangerous precedent, or it's utterly meaningless because a tyrant will simply ignore the laws and not be deterred by any piece of paper. You can't have it both ways.


Our system of government represents a social contract.  At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  What makes it work is that we generally agree on the meaning and voluntarily choose to abide by its precepts.  That hasn't stopped Presidents, Congresses or Supreme Courts from trying to get around its restrictions though.  Whether it's FDR trying to pack SCOTUS or Nixon waging war against his enemies or Reagan selling arms to terrorists or Bush authorizing torture, Presidents will try to take on more power.  But the nature of our social contract is so strong that none of them can simply toss the system aside.  They have to use these memos or executive orders to provide enough Constitutional cover to push through their agenda.  That's what makes memos like this so dangerous, especially if they survive a court challenge.  It's easy to give the government power, it's harder to take it away.  That's why so much of the Constitution is dedicated to telling the government what it can't do.
 
2013-02-05 01:48:11 AM
Is there a formal declaration of war?  If there is not, then treason can not be applied.  If there is, then shoot the bastards who target our troops, civilian citizens, allies, or installations.
 
2013-02-05 01:49:06 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: This thread: Exhibit A for how far right the Democratic party has been dragged.


Far right? I'm not a kin to that, no sirree.
 
2013-02-05 01:49:07 AM
This is a seriously dangerous precedent to set up. Applying the argument to Al Qaeda is fine and dandy because they are unpopular, but there's an awfully big grey area on what classifies one as a "leader" or "providing aid". Is a soldier defecting a leader? What about releasing military memos to the press? Does treason apply to exclusively military secrets (if I find a bug in the NASDAQ that lets me make billions and I sell that secret to the Russians who pour the money back into terrorist groups, does that make me an accomplice to terrorism)? How much intelligence is considered "reliable" - proven reports verified by the UN or eyewitness testimony from on the ground contractors?

I trust Barack Obama to not extend the abuse of power. I don't trust US Presidents #45 through infinity
 
2013-02-05 01:49:14 AM
I'm thank Obama for taking out al-Awlaki with a drone strike. Seriously, if nothing else, go read Awlaki's wiki page and tell me that al-Awlaki's American citizenship should've stood in the way of the fateful drone strike, keeping in mind that other options simply didn't exist.
 
2013-02-05 01:50:56 AM

whidbey: saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?

You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.


Any "liberal" who voted for someone who advocates totally scrapping the 4th and 5th Amendments, assassinates citizens who were never charged with crimes, and launches multiple undeclared, lethal air wars that destabilize known extremist hotbed countries, including some with nuclear weapons... yes... SHOULD probably feel incredibly guilty.

Unless they believe in these actions, in which case the word for them is not "liberals", it is "neocon conservatives."

So, are you a liberal who has betrayed your own beliefs? Then go feel guilty. Don't yell at me for reminding you what a compromised person you are and pointing to the tattered pile of principles that you tossed in the fire for Obama.

On the other hand, if you are a neocon supporter of the imperial presidency, then you're getting everything you ever wanted so I don't see why anything I say should upset you.
 
2013-02-05 01:51:21 AM

Mentat: the Constitution is just a piece of paper.


Any person in an elected office who calls it that should immediately be removed from office.

It is not just a piece of paper.  It is the very foundation of our society.  Without it, we are no different from any other country and the people in positions of power are no better than tin-pot dictators.
 
2013-02-05 01:52:06 AM

Mrbogey: whidbey: I'm not sure what's more laughable, your shameless whiteknighting of the most morally bankrupt political party in history...

That bad? Man, Obama should just order them executed. Of course, the trick is waiting till they leave the country so as to justify it.


The only thing I got out of this comment is that you still refuse to acknowledge the utter worthlessness of the Republican Party even when confronted.
 
2013-02-05 01:52:47 AM

detritus: saburai:
Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

Dont forget Occupy Wall Street.  I hear those guys want to blow up bridges because the FBI says so.


None of those groups are considered Al-Qaeda affiliates for the purpose of the AUMF, which grants the President the authority to fight al-Qaeda and undergirds this memo.
 
2013-02-05 01:54:05 AM

Rincewind53: Because A, therefore B, C, D... X, Y, Z, is a very weak argument. You act as if this memo is somehow dispositive on the issue, as if because we killed Awlaki, the next thing, we're killing Americans on American soil with drone strikes.

As Justice Scalia would say, that's "Reduction ad absurdum", and I recall you coming down rather hard against him for his use of it.


The entire Bush Administration was reducto ad absurdum.  When a President of the United States gets his Attorney General to write a set of memos that allow the United States to circumvent the Geneva Conventions prohibition on torture, I think it's safe to assume that something like that could happen again in the future.  The same neocons who were responsible for that almost came to power again last year.  The Republican Party is currently engaged in a nationwide campaign to disenfranchise millions of voters.  Yet somehow, the idea that a future President could justify a drone attack on an American citizen within the borders of the US is absurd?  This isn't debate class, this is the real world.
 
2013-02-05 01:55:01 AM

saburai: whidbey: saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?

You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.

Any "liberal" who voted for someone who advocates totally scrapping the 4th and 5th Amendments, assassinates citizens who were never charged with crimes, and launches multiple undeclared, lethal air wars that destabilize known extremist hotbed countries, including some with nuclear weapons... yes... SHOULD probably feel incredibly guilty.

Unless they believe in these actions, in which case the word for them is not "liberals", it is "neocon conservatives."

So, are you a liberal who has betrayed your own beliefs? Then go feel guilty. Don't yell at me for reminding you what a compromised person you are and pointing to the tattered pile of principles that you tossed in the fire for Obama.

On the other hand, if you are a neocon supporter of the imperial presidency, then you're getting everything you ever wanted so I don't see why anything I say should upset you.


Whidbey always seemed like more of a leftist and hardcore Democrat as opposed to a liberal.
 
2013-02-05 01:55:41 AM

Rincewind53: I thought more of you.


Did you learn anything? I'm absolutely certain that you shouldn't do that. Though age has mellowed him in some areas he's still not all that bright. 'Tis sad but true.
 
2013-02-05 01:56:32 AM

OgreMagi: Mentat: the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Any person in an elected office who calls it that should immediately be removed from office.

It is not just a piece of paper.  It is the very foundation of our society.  Without it, we are no different from any other country and the people in positions of power are no better than tin-pot dictators.


I think that was kind of the gist of my post, but thank you for ignoring everything else I wrote.
 
2013-02-05 01:56:36 AM

saburai: What is "siding"? Taking up arms? Sending money? Writing a favorable comment on YouTube that gets 10,000 up votes? Does criticizing US forces count, if you don't advocate violence? What if you DO advocate violence, but not directly against the US? What if you advocate violence against a US ally in Saudi Arabia? What about against an ally in Libya (i.e. Kadaffi in 2008).

Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

What is an "associated force"? Would contributing to Wikileaks count if the government said it was a hostile organization?

What does it mean to do something "knowingly"? What if you wrote a short story, meant to be fiction, that was interpreted as a call to action by a violent kid somewhere who cited you and blew up a bus? What if you donated to a cause that was LATER determined to have been a terrorist group for many years prior, including when you donated? See MEK.

And finally: Who decides these things? A court? A judge? A nameless official looking at your name in a binder somewhere?

Does Sweet Zombi Jesus decide?

"How is this in question?" Christ, man, how is this anything but a LONG SERIES OF HUGE QUESTIONS?

Are you really as incurious, unimaginative, and trusting of the government as you try to sound? And are you actually accusing OTHER people of derp?


Actually, the most important question is:
The answers to all of those questions above -- do you want them publicallly discussed, voted on in Congress, and reviewed by the courts, or do you want to let the executive branch answer all of them by itself with no debate, no review, and no disclosure?
 
2013-02-05 01:56:44 AM

saburai: You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.

Any "liberal" who voted for someone who advocates totally scrapping the 4th and 5th Amendments, assassinates citizens who were never charged with crimes, and launches multiple undeclared, lethal air wars that destabilize known extremist hotbed countries, including some with nuclear weapons... yes... SHOULD probably feel incredibly guilty.


I didn't vote for Bush.  And you're clearly trying to paint the actions of the current administration  who is being forced to deal with the farkups of the past  in the same light, which is bullshiat.

The fact is we broke it, we bought it.   The trick is to not elect any more Bush types who would lie to this country and set off another offensive.
 
2013-02-05 01:57:44 AM

UnspokenVoice: Rincewind53: I thought more of you.

Did you learn anything? I'm absolutely certain that you shouldn't do that. Though age has mellowed him in some areas he's still not all that bright. 'Tis sad but true.


Dude, get out of here if you're just going to show up and make personal attacks.   Seriously.
 
2013-02-05 01:58:13 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Rincewind53: Is Al-Qaeda the kind of "enemy" envisioned by the Founders? Surely they meant enemy nation-states, not political groups.

I agree, they could have never envisioned non-state terror cells.


Why not?  Surely they were familiar with the Assassins of medieval times.  Middle Eastern zealots fanatically loyal to a fundamentalist version of Islam, outnumbered and driven into hiding but willing to forfeit their own lives to strike a heavy blow against their enemies when the opportunity presented itself... any of this sound familiar yet?
 
2013-02-05 01:58:25 AM
As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.
 
2013-02-05 02:00:14 AM

TheJoe03: Whidbey always seemed like more of a leftist and hardcore Democrat as opposed to a liberal.


I'm actually a politically moderate liberal, thanks.
 
2013-02-05 02:00:47 AM

saburai: whidbey: saburai: whidbey: saburai: Liberal derp is still derp.

Yup. Nothing biased about your stance.  Those damn liburuls.  Raisin' yer taxes.

Remind me, what is my stance?

You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.

Any "liberal" who voted for someone who advocates totally scrapping the 4th and 5th Amendments, assassinates citizens who were never charged with crimes, and launches multiple undeclared, lethal air wars that destabilize known extremist hotbed countries, including some with nuclear weapons... yes... SHOULD probably feel incredibly guilty.

Unless they believe in these actions, in which case the word for them is not "liberals", it is "neocon conservatives."

So, are you a liberal who has betrayed your own beliefs? Then go feel guilty. Don't yell at me for reminding you what a compromised person you are and pointing to the tattered pile of principles that you tossed in the fire for Obama.

On the other hand, if you are a neocon supporter of the imperial presidency, then you're getting everything you ever wanted so I don't see why anything I say should upset you.


There is also option C which would be voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Romney was completely mental on foreign policy, let alone domestic policy. Remember the whole picking fights with Russia and China before even getting elected? Or stating that he would go to war with Iran. But I know, BSARSVR amirite?
 
2013-02-05 02:01:29 AM
If you can kill 'em, can you water board 'em?
 
2013-02-05 02:02:21 AM
Seth'n'Spectrum:
Actually, the most important question is:
The answers to all of those questions above -- do you want them publicallly discussed, voted on in Congress, and reviewed by the courts, or do you want to let the executive branch answer all of them by itself with no debate, no review, and no disclosure?


The funny/sad thing is given the current environment, I would trust the Executive Branch to make a decision and ignore the wishes of Congress in that scenario. I've called President Obama "the finest Republican President in 50 years" for a reason, and I would put an Executive Order as more Constitutionally sound than anything the House or Senate barfs up at the moment.

/I hold this opinion through January of 2015 and reserve the right to adjust it accordingly
 
2013-02-05 02:03:43 AM

Mentat: Rincewind53: Mentat: If there's one thing we learned during the Bush Administration, it's that the law can be used to justify anything until it becomes inconvenient, then you just ignore it.  Do you think a future Dick Cheney is going to be deterred by a piece of paper?  That's why you have to be so careful setting precedent.

Well, which is it? Either this memo is horrifying because it sets a dangerous precedent, or it's utterly meaningless because a tyrant will simply ignore the laws and not be deterred by any piece of paper. You can't have it both ways.

Our system of government represents a social contract.  At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  What makes it work is that we generally agree on the meaning and voluntarily choose to abide by its precepts.  That hasn't stopped Presidents, Congresses or Supreme Courts from trying to get around its restrictions though.  Whether it's FDR trying to pack SCOTUS or Nixon waging war against his enemies or Reagan selling arms to terrorists or Bush authorizing torture, Presidents will try to take on more power.  But the nature of our social contract is so strong that none of them can simply toss the system aside.  They have to use these memos or executive orders to provide enough Constitutional cover to push through their agenda.  That's what makes memos like this so dangerous, especially if they survive a court challenge.  It's easy to give the government power, it's harder to take it away.  That's why so much of the Constitution is dedicated to telling the government what it can't do.


Actually, your description of the Constitution as having a lot of language saying what the government cannot do essentially only applies to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution without the Amendments is a document of enumerated powers, saying only what the government can do and operating on the rule that if the Constitution doesn't say that the government can do something, it can't.

But that doesn't really address the problem with your statement. If legal precedent does not matter because in the end, a tyrannical president will ignore all precedent and simply act without regard to the Constitution, then why argue against this at all? Is the existence of a legal memo like saying "Bloody Mary" three times in front of a mirror, thus summoning a demon into the world that cannot be exorcised?

This memo lays out the President's rationale for why he thinks it was legal to use drone strikes against Awlaki. As far as we know, this rationale has not been used in any other circumstance in the last two years; although Awlaki's son was later killed by a drone strike, the US claims to have been targeting someone else and that he was collateral damage.

The idea that this memo is "dangerous precedent" is simply wrong. The actions by the president are the dangerous precedent, not the legal rationale, which I suggest you and the other people in the thread actually take the time to read through (it's only 16 pages)
 
2013-02-05 02:04:50 AM
You know when I first heard about this, I was really not receptive to the idea of this being acceptable in any way, shape, or form for the US Government to authorize a kill order on a US Citizen.  But then I thought about it for a while, and I realize some things.

First, that this isn't really new in concept.  If you have a hostage situation - for example - and a sniper has the shot... you don't say "but that man is probably a US Citizen and we need to arrest him no matter what."  You tell the sniper to take the shot and hopefully save lives of other people who are probably also US citizens.

Someone who is actively engaged in trying to get US Citizens killed and you can't really arrest him without getting other US citizens (in this case US soldiers) killed - then kill him.  It is the best of all the bad options.

That said, all these cases need to go through a court after the fact to make sure that no impropriety has taken place.  If someone in power misused this to get someone "unfavorable" to get killed, then they need to be tried for conspiracy to commit murder and no possibility to downgrade charges nor receive parole/sentencing reduction

In this case, I would say that not having preponderance of evidence showing that the target for drone death is indeed intent on killing US citizens, then the person who made that call should be found guilty - on the lack of a preponderance of evidence alone.  That should act as the safeguard on something like this - which sorely needs a safeguard.
 
2013-02-05 02:04:51 AM

whidbey: I'm actually a politically moderate liberal, thanks.


Meh, I think in America liberal has turned into meaning the entire American left. You don't strike me as a moderate liberal (going by the actual definition, not the mainstream American thought about it, since democratic socialist is somehow a bad word here, so they tend to call themselves liberal), but I guess I can't really tell you what you think, so fark it.
 
2013-02-05 02:05:01 AM
I know I'm probably just looking down the slippery slope here, but how long until this sort of doctrine is used to target citizens domestically?
 
2013-02-05 02:07:05 AM
We have more restrictive ROE in on-ground military engagements in Afghanistan than we do with drones. That's scary as fark.
 
2013-02-05 02:07:49 AM

super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.


So you'd be fine with military action used against such "enemies of the state" as gang members, protest groups, or whoever some politician feels like accusing of terrorism this week?
 
2013-02-05 02:08:55 AM

Point02GPA: If you can kill 'em, can you water board 'em?


You can kill enemy solders, but you can't waterboard them. Same with Americans who take up arms against America.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it.
 
2013-02-05 02:11:32 AM

Arumat: super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.

So you'd be fine with military action used against such "enemies of the state" as gang members, protest groups, or whoever some politician feels like accusing of terrorism this week?


That's a strawman, bombs are very expensive and a drone run costs millions of dollars. America simply can't afford to do it for every petty criminal and agitator.

We should only save it for drug gangs, terrorists, and the odd cultist.
 
2013-02-05 02:13:07 AM

ordinarysteve: Or stating that he would go to war with Iran.


Stating you want to go to war with Iran is essentially mandatory for entrance into the lowest floor of the Republican treehouse. Promising to ban porn and carving the ten commandments into Mount Rushmore will get you into the atrium.

The penthouse requires serious derpular fortitute

/can you say Randian Moonbase colony?
 
2013-02-05 02:13:31 AM

Arumat: I know I'm probably just looking down the slippery slope here, but how long until this sort of doctrine is used to target citizens domestically?


Literally never. Read the memo. It's extremely specific about how and where and why it applies.

And those of you accusing me of being naive, well, let me just point out that this is a  memo. That does not bind any person. That is not law. That is not a court decision. That does not create legal precedent.

People, the law is not Harry Potter. There is no "Legal-Theory-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named." This memo laid out to the President a legal theory by which he could kill Awlaki with a drone strike without going through the courts. His decision to act on the theory is what creates precedent, but it does not make this memo either precedential or correct.
 
2013-02-05 02:13:53 AM

super_grass: Point02GPA: If you can kill 'em, can you water board 'em?

You can kill enemy solders, but you can't waterboard them. Same with Americans who take up arms against America.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it.


A dead person can't [normally] increase good actionable intelligence.
 
2013-02-05 02:13:58 AM

Rincewind53: The idea that this memo is "dangerous precedent" is simply wrong. The actions by the president are the dangerous precedent, not the legal rationale, which I suggest you and the other people in the thread actually take the time to read through (it's only 16 pages)


You can't separate the actions from the legal rationale.  The Bush Administration couldn't just come out and say "We're torturing people".  They had to have the political cover that came from the Justice Department's memos on interrogation.  No, this particular memo won't allow future President's to launch drone strikes on Americans within US borders.  But it does give the President the legal cover to utilize drones against American citizens and THAT precedent will be passed on to future Presidents.  History suggests that they will try to expand that power, often incrementally, and often with the best of intentions.  And the Bush Administration proved the old adage about good intentions.
 
2013-02-05 02:14:06 AM

miss diminutive: False equivalence is false.


I don't follow.  Can you elaborate?
 
2013-02-05 02:14:12 AM

whidbey: saburai: You've clearly out to give liberals a "gotcha" moment and make us feel guilty for electing this Presidency. Again.

Any "liberal" who voted for someone who advocates totally scrapping the 4th and 5th Amendments, assassinates citizens who were never charged with crimes, and launches multiple undeclared, lethal air wars that destabilize known extremist hotbed countries, including some with nuclear weapons... yes... SHOULD probably feel incredibly guilty.

I didn't vote for Bush.  And you're clearly trying to paint the actions of the current administration  who is being forced to deal with the farkups of the past  in the same light, which is bullshiat.

The fact is we broke it, we bought it.   The trick is to not elect any more Bush types who would lie to this country and set off another offensive.


That's a fantastic b-b-b-Bush cop out you've got there.
 
2013-02-05 02:14:23 AM

super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.


That argument was used by the FBI and CIA in their spying operations against members of the Occupy movement. They were attacking the foundation of our government and should be treated as enemies of the state. All for exercising their right to free speech in speaking out against injustices perpretrated by the government and the market.
 
2013-02-05 02:14:57 AM
cman:  3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

given your obvious lack of basic civics knowledge or respect for democractic ideals, i and a couple of other military guys in some committee you have no access to declare your words to be treasononous.  expect sudden UAV death.
 
2013-02-05 02:15:03 AM

nmrsnr: In order to help me clarify, tell me which, if any, of the following scenarios are problematic:

If there's an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

To me these are all roughly equivalent scenarios, and I do not have a problem with any of them.


To me, they're not roughly equivalent scenarios,  because as others have already said, the fifth amendment says that:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This would seem to fly directly in the face of that.

And yes, as it happens, I would have a problem with the other two scenarios where no American is present, as well. The reason being that the "war on terror" is not a real and declared war, and that being the case, we don't have any more right to strike targets in somebody else's sovereign territory than they do in our own. If Joe Ihatemooslums goes and blows himself up in Yemen or Afghanistan tomorrow, would we believe Yemeni or Afghanistani strikes on US soil to kill Joe's co-conspirators to be legitimate? I rather doubt that.

Either the bases are there without the permission and aid of the state in question (in which case we should be working with those states to fight terrorism, giving them full access to our intelligence data to enable them to do the job themselves, and in whatever role they request us to take part, doing so while giving full deference to their own rights as a sovereign state and in complete abidance with their own laws), or those states are permitting and aiding the terrorists (in which case we should be declaring a real war, and putting an end to state-sponsored terrorism).

What we are doing now is -- and I believe quite intentionally so -- merely stoking the fires of whole new generations who hate us for our arrogance and the fact we believe we are entitled to strike anywhere we want to, when we want to, all the while telling ourselves that we are superior to the governments of every other nation.

That will not end the "war on terror", because it isn't actually a war and cannot be won, as such. It will merely ensure that it continues to be even more bitterly fought in the future; fought by generations of people raised on seeing their neighbors killed in anonymous drone attacks, living in fear of dying in the next attack themselves, and all along watching their government being treated like an unruly child.

And that, while it's great for those turning huge personal profits off our military machine, is not in the best interests of the country or its people.
 
2013-02-05 02:15:03 AM

Rincewind53: detritus: saburai:
Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

Dont forget Occupy Wall Street.  I hear those guys want to blow up bridges because the FBI says so.

None of those groups are considered Al-Qaeda affiliates for the purpose of the AUMF, which grants the President the authority to fight al-Qaeda and undergirds this memo.


Do you know what Al-Qaeda even is?  It literally means "the base" as in database.  It's the Mujahideen, the soldiers of engage in jihad.  The ones we hired to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and are now actively helping fight the Syrian regime.  So in other words, Obama, by his own definition, is an Al-Qaeda affiliate.
 
2013-02-05 02:15:13 AM
Several herpers and derpers in this thread have brought up the question of what it takes to forfeit one's citizenship in connection with terrorist activitities.  Here you go:

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one's own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA); entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).Can you lose it for taking up arms against the US government?  Yes... after your conviction has been processed.
 
2013-02-05 02:18:14 AM

super_grass: Arumat: super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.

So you'd be fine with military action used against such "enemies of the state" as gang members, protest groups, or whoever some politician feels like accusing of terrorism this week?

That's a strawman, bombs are very expensive and a drone run costs millions of dollars. America simply can't afford to do it for every petty criminal and agitator.

We should only save it for drug gangs, terrorists, and the odd cultist.


4.bp.blogspot.com

?
 
2013-02-05 02:18:28 AM

miss diminutive: ordinarysteve: Or stating that he would go to war with Iran.

Stating you want to go to war with Iran is essentially mandatory for entrance into the lowest floor of the Republican treehouse. Promising to ban porn and carving the ten commandments into Mount Rushmore will get you into the atrium.

The penthouse requires serious derpular fortitute

/can you say Randian Moonbase colony?


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
Callista would have been such a charming, and not at all terrifying first lady.
 
2013-02-05 02:18:35 AM
The government has the same right to assassinate citizens as non-citizens.

Most restrictions on government power in the constitution are not reserved for actions against citizens.

Be as upset about gov assassination as you like, but stop thinking a USC al quaeda operative deserves any different treatment because of his birthplace. That makes no sense either morally or legally. Hell from an international law standpoint a country has more standing to harm its own people than those of a foreign country.
 
2013-02-05 02:18:42 AM

Serious Black: super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.

That argument was used by the FBI and CIA in their spying operations against members of the Occupy movement. They were attacking the foundation of our government and should be treated as enemies of the state. All for exercising their right to free speech in speaking out against injustices perpretrated by the government and the market.


But Occupiers never attacked Americans, nor did they ever advocate the violent overthrow of the American government or acts of terror.

In all honesty, the GOP's far-right wing qualifies more as enemy combatants.
 
2013-02-05 02:19:24 AM

Man On Pink Corner: miss diminutive: False equivalence is false.

I don't follow.  Can you elaborate?


While I agree with the spirit of your statement that the War on TerrorTM is ill defined and problematic, comparing jaywalking to terrorism simply doesn't apply.

Or maybe my facetious meter is just broken.
 
2013-02-05 02:19:53 AM
Let me add one more thing. As someone who has talked with individuals who have been directly involved in high levels of the US government's national security policy, and who has attended numerous talks on the issue, if you honestly think that the President and high-ranking American officials genuinely don't give a shiat about fitting their actions to a legal framework, you're just wrong. The very existence of this and the torture memos indicate that they desperately need legal cover and a framework by which to operate in. This framework can come for OLC (The Office of Legal Counsel), but OLC's opinions are not binding on the President, and like always, we have both Congress and the Judicial Branch to act as checks and balances against executive power.

If you're envisioning a world where we're  bombingAmerican citizens  in America, and Congress and the judiciary all go along with it, then this memo is really the least of your dystopic worries.
 
2013-02-05 02:20:25 AM
The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.
 
2013-02-05 02:23:41 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm a dirty pinko commie socialist libtard and even I have a hard time getting worked up over it.


That's you're about GO TEAM instead of principle.

If this had been written during Bush's terms, you would have been demanding Articles of Impeachment.
 
2013-02-05 02:23:49 AM

Rincewind53: Let me add one more thing. As someone who has talked with individuals who have been directly involved in high levels of the US government's national security policy, and who has attended numerous talks on the issue, if you honestly think that the President and high-ranking American officials genuinely don't give a shiat about fitting their actions to a legal framework, you're just wrong. The very existence of this and the torture memos indicate that they desperately need legal cover and a framework by which to operate in. This framework can come for OLC (The Office of Legal Counsel), but OLC's opinions are not binding on the President, and like always, we have both Congress and the Judicial Branch to act as checks and balances against executive power.

If you're envisioning a world where we're  bombingAmerican citizens  in America, and Congress and the judiciary all go along with it, then this memo is really the least of your dystopic worries.


Yeah, that's why Congress has taken all kinds of actions to stop the President from torturing people or launching Hellfires on people's heads. And it's also why hundreds of court cases that have reach the Supreme Court were decided in favor of protecting people from these ridiculous injustices. Oh, no, wait, that's a parallel universe!
 
2013-02-05 02:24:05 AM

Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.


Torturing the enemy is wrong, bombing them isn't. Bush was a war criminal, Obama is well within the law.

Try again.
 
2013-02-05 02:24:16 AM

bk3k: First, that this isn't really new in concept.  If you have a hostage situation - for example - and a sniper has the shot... you don't say "but that man is probably a US Citizen and we need to arrest him no matter what."  You tell the sniper to take the shot and hopefully save lives of other people who are probably also US citizens.


Strawman. This is more akin to somebody buying a knife, so we take him out with a sniper rifle because he might have used that knife against a US citizen at some indeterminate point in the future.

You don't shoot the guy who just bought the knife. You keep him under damned careful surveillance, learn what he is up to, gather as much information as possible on other contacts you should be surveilling, attempt to arrest and try him *legitimately* where possible if you have proof that he's really planning something, and kill him only as a last resort once he becomes an imminent danger to others.

It is, after all, perfectly possible that your original information was wrong and that he was never actually a threat, or that he could've been caught legitimately or turned sides and brought you a major intelligent coup that foils a larger plot, or even that he could be the person who one day sees the error of his ways and is able to persuade his fellow men to set down their arms and abandon their plans.

You don't kill somebody who is not an imminent threat. It doesn't make sense on any level.
 
2013-02-05 02:24:51 AM

Man On Pink Corner: Just one question.

When does the "War On Terror" end?  Who is a "terrorist," and why should an accusation of terrorism carry any more judicial weight, by its mere utterance, than an accusation of bank robbery or jaywalking?

Which "terrorists" are authorized to sign an armistice in this "war," or to sue for peace on behalf of their organization?


This is really just a CYA memo; its leak is probably intended to dull any future criticism should an event cause a large amount of media attention. Given that "state secrets" will prevent any evidence from reaching a future plaintiff there's no possible way that a crime could be judged.
 
2013-02-05 02:26:35 AM

super_grass: Serious Black: super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.

That argument was used by the FBI and CIA in their spying operations against members of the Occupy movement. They were attacking the foundation of our government and should be treated as enemies of the state. All for exercising their right to free speech in speaking out against injustices perpretrated by the government and the market.

But Occupiers never attacked Americans, nor did they ever advocate the violent overthrow of the American government or acts of terror.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2013-02-05 02:26:59 AM

Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the libby lib lib libs around here are very opposed to this practice.
 
2013-02-05 02:27:13 AM

detritus: Rincewind53: detritus: saburai:
Who is "the enemy"? Would Hezbollah count? Would Hamas count? Would going to a "free Palestine" rally count?

Dont forget Occupy Wall Street.  I hear those guys want to blow up bridges because the FBI says so.

None of those groups are considered Al-Qaeda affiliates for the purpose of the AUMF, which grants the President the authority to fight al-Qaeda and undergirds this memo.

Do you know what Al-Qaeda even is?  It literally means "the base" as in database.  It's the Mujahideen, the soldiers of engage in jihad.  The ones we hired to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and are now actively helping fight the Syrian regime.  So in other words, Obama, by his own definition, is an Al-Qaeda affiliate.


Yeah, no. Nice try. Al-Qaeda is a discrete organization founded in the late 1980s by Abdullah Azzam and others. If you think that Al-Qaeda encompasses all of the global jihad, then man, have you got the wrong idea. And the State Department keeps a list off specific Al-Qaeda affiliates, which is publicly available (go look it up if you want to). These affiliates are included in the GWOT because of the specific language of the post 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which gives the president the power to use military force against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

/worked for two years studying Islamic terrorism.
//I know what I'm talking about.
 
2013-02-05 02:28:35 AM

super_grass: Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.

Torturing the enemy is wrong, bombing them isn't. Bush was a war criminal, Obama is well within the law.

Try again.


You're tying yourself into knots trying to justify this.
Keep going, Sparky.
 
2013-02-05 02:29:24 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the libby lib lib libs around here are very opposed to this practice.


You have an extra lib in there...it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
 
2013-02-05 02:30:26 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: super_grass: Serious Black: super_grass: As long as we don't waterboard them, it's a-OK.

People who decide to take up arms against the government are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such.

That argument was used by the FBI and CIA in their spying operations against members of the Occupy movement. They were attacking the foundation of our government and should be treated as enemies of the state. All for exercising their right to free speech in speaking out against injustices perpretrated by the government and the market.

But Occupiers never attacked Americans, nor did they ever advocate the violent overthrow of the American government or acts of terror.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Those are just a few bad apples and don't represent the (leaderless) movement as a whole, just saying.

By the same logic, you can say that all Muslims are terrorists because of Bin Laden, which we also killed without one of your precious "trials".
 
2013-02-05 02:31:49 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: super_grass: Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.

Torturing the enemy is wrong, bombing them isn't. Bush was a war criminal, Obama is well within the law.

Try again.

You're tying yourself into knots trying to justify this.
Keep going, Sparky.


There's nothing inconsistent about it.  We can kill as many enemies as we want, but we can't mistreat them as POWs.
 
2013-02-05 02:32:38 AM

Serious Black: Rincewind53: Let me add one more thing. As someone who has talked with individuals who have been directly involved in high levels of the US government's national security policy, and who has attended numerous talks on the issue, if you honestly think that the President and high-ranking American officials genuinely don't give a shiat about fitting their actions to a legal framework, you're just wrong. The very existence of this and the torture memos indicate that they desperately need legal cover and a framework by which to operate in. This framework can come for OLC (The Office of Legal Counsel), but OLC's opinions are not binding on the President, and like always, we have both Congress and the Judicial Branch to act as checks and balances against executive power.

If you're envisioning a world where we're  bombingAmerican citizens  in America, and Congress and the judiciary all go along with it, then this memo is really the least of your dystopic worries.

Yeah, that's why Congress has taken all kinds of actions to stop the President from torturing people or launching Hellfires on people's heads. And it's also why hundreds of court cases that have reach the Supreme Court were decided in favor of protecting people from these ridiculous injustices. Oh, no, wait, that's a parallel universe!


I think someone just learned how checks and balances work!

When everyone agrees with the actions of one party, they don't check them. Checks and balances are to limit one governing body from unilateral action. They are no guarantee actions are good.
 
2013-02-05 02:32:54 AM
Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?
 
2013-02-05 02:35:33 AM

Giltric: Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?


You consider yourself a contributor to fark, but all you've ever done is shiat on threads.
 
2013-02-05 02:36:43 AM

super_grass: Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.

Torturing the enemy is wrong, bombing them isn't. Bush was a war criminal, Obama is well within the law.

Try again.


...it seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage: there are, after all, no infants interned at Guantanamo Bay. Torture need not even impose a significant risk of death or permanent injury on its victims; while the collaterally damaged are, almost by definition, crippled or killed.
 
2013-02-05 02:38:33 AM
Due process? Who needs that! I for one lovingly accept our new drone overlords.
 
2013-02-05 02:39:47 AM

david_gaithersburg: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
.
Yes, four years.


The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones
 
2013-02-05 02:41:32 AM

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: The first footnote in the white paper refers to Hamily vs Obama. This was not written under Bush this is from the Obama administration.

But don't let that stop the But Bush party.

Own it libs.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the libby lib lib libs around here are very opposed to this practice.

You have an extra lib in there...it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.


Well, the important thing is that you continue to feel superior by condemning the made-up libs in your head for not opposing this practice while the real-life libs in here are doing just that.  Enjoy!
 
2013-02-05 02:42:47 AM

nmrsnr: So, I'm generally a libby lib-lib, but in this case I don't have much problem with the government's finding. Where, exactly, is people's problem with this?

In order to help me clarify, tell me which, if any, of the following scenarios are problematic:

If there's an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

To me these are all roughly equivalent scenarios, and I do not have a problem with any of them. I may have a problem with a specific judgement call the President may make, but not with the general right of the President to make it. Being American doesn't make you immune from being a target if you side with the enemy in a battle (IMHO).


To have a problem with it, or no problem, I would have to know what that American person was...are they a terrorist, a hostage, a peace keeping person (like giving aid)
 
2013-02-05 02:48:31 AM

fusillade762: david_gaithersburg: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
.
Yes, four years.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones


Actually it looks like the first drone strike was done in 2002 in Yemen.
 
2013-02-05 02:57:08 AM

fusillade762: fusillade762: david_gaithersburg: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
.
Yes, four years.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones

Actually it looks like the first drone strike was done in 2002 in Yemen.


And?
The issue here is bombing American citizens. Without a trial. Without a jury.
 
2013-02-05 02:57:44 AM
Without reading comments yet, let me guess.

This is the thread where:

1)  Obama supporters are all for unilateral military action to go after american citizens because it makes the country safer, even though this position is opposite of any they have ever held because they cannot POSSIBLY criticize Obama for anything, cause he is on their "team".

and

2) Obama detractors are telling us how tyranical it is to use military might to try and make the country safer, even though this position is opposite of any they have ever held because they cannot POSSIBLY support Obama for anything, cause he is on the other "team".

/ do I really even NEED to look?
// maybe not all, but at least some.
 
2013-02-05 03:01:31 AM

Giltric: Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?


Not sure if herp  or derp.
 
2013-02-05 03:04:43 AM

whidbey: Giltric: Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?

Not sure if herp  or derp.


That's a hurrr at best.
 
2013-02-05 03:05:16 AM

whidbey: Rincewind53: This memo lays out the legal rationale for a very specific act; the targeted killing of an American citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda in a foreign country, who cannot be captured. For you to get "This is precedent to drone stroke American citizens in the United States who police determine to be "too risky" to bring out for trial" from that is absurd.

To be fair, though, this is what happens we we allow a Presidency like the Bush administration to lie to the American public and launch an all-out illegal unjustified war.  The result has been fallout for over a decade, even after the conflicts are supposedly winding down.

It's long out of the bottle.


Still whining about Bush, I see! Well congrats on the fine job your boy is doing with the economy, though I imagine your welfare check has gone up a bit.
 
2013-02-05 03:09:19 AM
Let's do exactly what the politicians want us to do, and get outraged.

A confidential Justice Department memo

+

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week's hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.

=

Politically inspired leak.

This sort of leak needs to stop.  This isn't a well-intended 'whistleblower' leak.  This is a strategically timed leak for maximum political upheaval.
 
2013-02-05 03:09:51 AM

david_gaithersburg: fusillade762: fusillade762: david_gaithersburg: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
.
Yes, four years.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones

Actually it looks like the first drone strike was done in 2002 in Yemen.
.
Sigh,  The story is about the US assassinating US citizens for exercising free speech.  Operating blogs as I recall.


Still not four years.

In early 2010, with President Barack Obama's approval, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011.
 
2013-02-05 03:11:43 AM
Friction8r:

I thought you'd be boogie-ing down on the dance floor to the Hustle in some mid-town meat market.  How on earth did you manage to stumble into this fracas?
 
2013-02-05 03:16:29 AM
Settle down nerds..it is gods will who lives and dies. It's a strange plan that involves many children dying in horrifying ways, but it is gods plan and we can't start to understand it.

Amen
 
2013-02-05 03:16:58 AM
I'm lost. Am I supposed to be angry at Fartbama for authorizing such strikes, or angry at the gol-durn liberal media for its treasonous publication of secret military stuff?
 
2013-02-05 03:18:08 AM

Smackledorfer: Giltric: Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?

You consider yourself a contributor to fark, but all you've ever done is shiat on threads.


Is Obama not shiatting on the BoR, violating due process that he was so in favor of until he wasn't?

Should I have made multiple alts?
Should I have said But Bush?

Maybe you should have responded with "it's because he's black, right?"
 
2013-02-05 03:19:04 AM

fusillade762: david_gaithersburg: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?
.
Yes, four years.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones


American citizens?
 
2013-02-05 03:19:12 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: Let's do exactly what the politicians want us to do, and get outraged.

A confidential Justice Department memo

+

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week's hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.

=

Politically inspired leak.

This sort of leak needs to stop.  This isn't a well-intended 'whistleblower' leak.  This is a strategically timed leak for maximum political upheaval.


How dare they leak information about the government plotting to assassinate american citizens without due process! Such nerve!
 
2013-02-05 03:22:45 AM

Giltric: Smackledorfer: Giltric: Bush considered himself a businessman but ran busineeses into the ground and was a C student.

Obama considers himself a constitutional scholar yet constantly attacks the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder he doesn't want his transcripts released?

You consider yourself a contributor to fark, but all you've ever done is shiat on threads.

Is Obama not shiatting on the BoR, violating due process that he was so in favor of until he wasn't?

Should I have made multiple alts?
Should I have said But Bush?

Maybe you should have responded with "it's because he's black, right?"


This!
+1 sir!
 
2013-02-05 03:23:50 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: Let's do exactly what the politicians want us to do, and get outraged.

A confidential Justice Department memo

+

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week's hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.

=

Politically inspired leak.

This sort of leak needs to stop.  This isn't a well-intended 'whistleblower' leak.  This is a strategically timed leak for maximum political upheaval.


Why not leak it to affect the presidential election instead of some beaureucrat appointment?
 
2013-02-05 03:25:31 AM
Lol, look stall the liberals blown away that the gov't would do something like this.  Can't wait to see the libs calling gun right advocates paranoid for thinking the gov't wants to disarm everyone in the next gun thread
 
2013-02-05 03:26:14 AM

GUTSU: How dare they leak information about the government plotting to assassinate american citizens without due process! Such nerve!


Ha, nice.
 
2013-02-05 03:27:18 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: If you're in league with these asswits, you deserve to get blown up.


This. Sure, I would more than likely have a problem with this memo if the circumstances were different - but as they say, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Jackass was a terrorist. Act of war against a hostile agent. The end.

/If a Republican president took out a terrorist, he'd be given a medal.
//This nontroversy has nothing to do with the terrorist's American citizenship and everything to do with "OBAMA BAD."
 
2013-02-05 03:29:16 AM

I sound fat: Without reading comments yet, let me guess.

This is the thread where:

1)  Obama supporters are all for unilateral military action to go after american citizens because it makes the country safer, even though this position is opposite of any they have ever held because they cannot POSSIBLY criticize Obama for anything, cause he is on their "team".

and

2) Obama detractors are telling us how tyranical it is to use military might to try and make the country safer, even though this position is opposite of any they have ever held because they cannot POSSIBLY support Obama for anything, cause he is on the other "team".

/ do I really even NEED to look?
// maybe not all, but at least some.


I haven't gone through and counted, but I'd hazard a guess that there are at least a dozen Farkers who I'd nominally say are Obama supporters but have said that he's clearly in the wrong here (including myself).
 
2013-02-05 03:30:16 AM

Rincewind53: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

We already have - see, War, Civil.  Also, Texas, Waco.

Neither of those examples relates to the question here, which is about targeted killings of American citizens, without trial. The Civil War was a clearly defined war, where killings occurred as they normally do in war; face to face, between uniformed men. Waco was clearly not deliberate targeted killings without trial.


I was following what you were saying till you mentioned Waco, which wasn't in any way related to this situation. The ATF and FBI bungling a wierd religious hostage situation is not the same as the government targetting announced military targets. That's what Alwaki was, he was a known terrorist, on notice that he was wanted by the US, he actively avoided turning himself in, and as a result of being allied with our enemies was taken out the same way that any other enemy in war is.
 
2013-02-05 03:34:06 AM
This part of the thread was awesome. Rarely are people I have in green arguing with eachother. Notice how civilized the discussion is.

i6.photobucket.com

/then it got polluted by red posts from tenpounds, and some others.
 
2013-02-05 03:37:02 AM
Further, this is a military action. I don't know if "assasinations" are in the list of acceptable activities by the military, but, this guy was offed as a target of war.

It's like if he was yemeni, or afghani, or british, or chinese, doesn't farking matter, he's associated with Al Queda and thus a target, further, he had notice and could have turned himself in at any point. I'd be much more angry if he turned himself in and was tortured.
 
2013-02-05 03:37:32 AM

DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?


Would you have said the same if this was the Bush administration?
 
2013-02-05 03:37:52 AM

Ilmarinen: This part of the thread was awesome. Rarely are people I have in green arguing with eachother. Notice how civilized the discussion is.

[i6.photobucket.com image 799x442]

/then it got polluted by red posts from tenpounds, and some others.


You should have compressed the jpegs a bit more, that was almost legible.
 
2013-02-05 03:39:34 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?

Would you have said the same if this was the Bush administration?


I would have, in fact, I did, the problem isn't that our military militaried, it's that they have a blank check to do what they want. If people really wanted to fix this problems like this, they'd ammend or repeal the september 11 authorization of military force which permits this. Which is another thing, there is nothing wrong with the "checks and balances" of this situation, since use of military force has been authorized.
 
2013-02-05 03:41:57 AM

RowdyRough: Rincewind53: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

We already have - see, War, Civil.  Also, Texas, Waco.

Neither of those examples relates to the question here, which is about targeted killings of American citizens, without trial. The Civil War was a clearly defined war, where killings occurred as they normally do in war; face to face, between uniformed men. Waco was clearly not deliberate targeted killings without trial.

I was following what you were saying till you mentioned Waco, which wasn't in any way related to this situation. The ATF and FBI bungling a wierd religious hostage situation is not the same as the government targetting announced military targets. That's what Alwaki was, he was a known terrorist, on notice that he was wanted by the US, he actively avoided turning himself in, and as a result of being allied with our enemies was taken out the same way that any other enemy in war is.


Yes, lets give the government the ability to kill whichever Americans it deems fit. Who really needs a jury when your judge is also the executioner? I'm sure this will never be abused by anyone ever.
 
2013-02-05 03:42:15 AM

RowdyRough: You should have compressed the jpegs a bit more, that was almost legible.


Just read the whole thing upthread.
 
2013-02-05 03:42:30 AM

Ilmarinen: This part of the thread was awesome. Rarely are people I have in green arguing with eachother. Notice how civilized the discussion is.

[i6.photobucket.com image 799x442]

/then it got polluted by red posts from tenpounds, and some others.


You need to repost that image at a more legible size, but yep, you're dead-on.
 
2013-02-05 03:55:58 AM
Fluorescent Testicle
I would more than likely have a problem with this memo if the circumstances were different

such as if the president was a republican.
 
2013-02-05 03:56:39 AM

GAT_00: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.


I love the conspiracy theorist paranoia of "If they deem Americans outside the US as traitors and launch missiles at them without a fair trial, then the government WILL start lobbing missiles at everyone in the US! In my mind it's always the worst case scenario and now a cruise missile will be streaking toward my house as I speak since I dared challenge the President! Today a known traitor in an Al Queda bunker, tomorrow the entire population of Denver, Colorado!". It really is amazing how quickly and easily people will mentally leap straight off the slippery slope to construct the worst scenarios.

And even if it did come to somewhat of that scary doomsday scenario, launching missiles still only applies to battlefields on foreign soil. If your treasonous ass is living in the US, the SWAT team will just drive into your house and carry you away to jail, unless you're some kind of supervillain with a reinforced evil lair filled with death traps.
 
HBK
2013-02-05 04:00:19 AM

Rincewind53: If this is the memo I'm thinking of, the guy who wrote a lot of this, Marty Lederman, is actually a very nice guy who teaches at my law school. I've chatted with him.

It's very awkward chatting with someone who wrote something like this, when you're not sure if he even believes what he wrote.


A good lawyer can argue both sides of an issue.  But your professor probably won't tell you his side until he's retired.
 
2013-02-05 04:01:31 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If your treasonous ass is living in the US, the SWAT team will just drive into your house and carry you away to jail, unless you're some kind of supervillain with a reinforced evil lair filled with death traps


But then they're would have to be a trial! Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2013-02-05 04:02:10 AM

TheJoe03: But then they're there would have to be a trial! Ain't nobody got time for that.

 
2013-02-05 04:04:26 AM

cman: 3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


According to the Constitution, there is this little formality called a trial, before you can be found guilty of treason.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

dl.dropbox.com

You can't just claim someone is guilty of treason and kill them.
 
2013-02-05 04:10:34 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: GAT_00: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.

I love the conspiracy theorist paranoia of "If they deem Americans outside the US as traitors and launch missiles at them without a fair trial, then the government WILL start lobbing missiles at everyone in the US! In my mind it's always the worst case scenario and now a cruise missile will be streaking toward my house as I speak since I dared challenge the President! Today a known traitor in an Al Queda bunker, tomorrow the entire population of Denver, Colorado!". It really is amazing how quickly and easily people will mentally leap straight off the slippery slope to construct the worst scenarios.

And even if it did come to somewhat of that scary doomsday scenario, launching missiles still only applies to battlefields on foreign soil. If your treasonous ass is living in the US, the SWAT team will just drive into your house and carry you away to jail, unless you're some kind of supervillain with a reinforced evil lair filled with death traps.


As was stated earlier, the government often claims power in small steps.  Occasionally it even does so for benevolent reasons.  I don't claim to know that they'd extend this claimed authority to target American citizens any further, next week or in the next century.  On the other hand, I'd rather remove the possibility entirely without resorting to the bloody methods usually used to take power away from the government.
 
2013-02-05 04:12:00 AM
The US government is a terrorist organization. Bow to their might. Suck the cum from their guns.
 
2013-02-05 04:12:41 AM

WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?


Not true in the least. Hell, it's quite difficult for an American to voluntarily give up their citizenship.

Although the NDAA would allow them to toss you in a military prison without a trial until the end of the "war on terror" if a Federal Judge hadn't immediately ruled it Unconstitutional.

The Obama administration is fighting to overturn that ruling.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
 
2013-02-05 04:21:14 AM

BullBearMS: WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

Not true in the least. Hell, it's quite difficult for an American to voluntarily give up their citizenship.

Although the NDAA would allow them to toss you in a military prison without a trial until the end of the "war on terror" if a Federal Judge hadn't immediately ruled it Unconstitutional.

The Obama administration is fighting to overturn that ruling.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


I love that an Obama-nominated judge ruled it unconstitutional. The irony is so sweet that I could squeeze it into a pitcher of water and make myself some orange juice.
 
2013-02-05 04:22:50 AM

BullBearMS: cman: 3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

According to the Constitution, there is this little formality called a trial, before you can be found guilty of treason.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[dl.dropbox.com image 624x265]

You can't just claim someone is guilty of treason and kill them.


When they publicly denounce the United States and their citizenship, flee the country, hook up with their new friends, and actively plot with them, then what? Ship the NYPD over there to handcuff them and haul them back to the States? He also ignored the ultimatum to return and stand trail, and soldiers aren't policemen. Would you prefer we start arresting our opponents and shipping them all back to the States for trials and tossing them into our prisons?

Seriously, the only way these worst-case scenarios are going to happen is if the American people LET them happen. You all have the power of vote, so exercise it. And if a president one day suddenly goes insane or reveals himself to be an evil tyrant and starts ordering attacks on our own soil, unless he's mind-controlled or personally handpicked them all the military will b the first ones to oppose him and whoever cronies he has.
 
2013-02-05 04:29:02 AM

Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

Okay, so what about the Al Qaida base in Afghanistan with just the American in it? Okay or not? I don't see how being an American citizen materially changes whether or not the U.S. Government has the right to blow you up or not. Either they have good and just cause to order your death without trial, or they don't, where you were born really doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference.

Well, it's about the Due Process clause of the Constitution, which says "...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So any time the United States government deprives an American citizen of life, they need to follow the due process of the law, and many people believe that that would require a trial, and that targeted killings of American citizens outside of immediate battlefield is simply not allowed under the Constitution. This memo argues otherwise, and pegs the "Due Process" on a three part test, allowing such targeted killings against senior-level Al-Qaeda officials when "(1) an informed, high-level official of the United States government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

Then, later in the memo, the author essentially says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, of course, imminent doesn't mean imminent in the sense that the attack is going to occur in the next day or so, but imminent means simply that the Al-Qaeda official is actively plotting against the United States." Which means that ...


A lot of us have a big problem with it; but  here's the issue:

When President Bush declared A Global War on Terror, and a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle bought into it (and here we are a decade later with a lot of people still buying into it), he and they created a scenario where the battlefield had no boundaries. This war has no front line, and no country.

Therefore, our country and our leaders are in a position where, if any individual decides he is going to be part of this War, and take a position AGAINST the US, he can go anywhere in the world and still be part of it. And if this US citizen does that, and becomes an alleged traitor and abettor of the foes against the US, our government has only a few options:

1. They can attempt to extradite him by legal means and bring him back to the US to stand trial. Now, this would be preferable; but what if this individual is deemed to be and can be shown to be a "clear and present danger" to US interests? Or what if the nation to which he has fled has no extradition treaty with the US?

2. They can resort to military means to remove him, tantamount to declaring war on the host nation, in order to remove a person who has not yet committed a crime, against a country that has not committed any act of aggression against America. This is not a good option.

3. They can use extra-legal assassination against him, and kill him with minimum collateral damage, based on the theory that by his association with a terrorist organization and acts against the US, he has foregone his right to be treated as a citizen. This is not a good option, but preferable to declaring war against the host nation.

4. They can do nothing, and hope nothing bad happens by his actions, and send a message that the US will do nothing to its traitors. This is also not a good option, as it sends a message to potential traitors (and other criminals) that the US is disinclined to pursue them if it is inconvenient to do so; and sends a message to terrorist organizations that they should feel free to recruit in the US as we will not chase US citizens outside our borders.

I mean, really, which of these options would you prefer? If a known US citizen has joined al-Qaeda or the Islamic Jihad and is just a foot soldier, there is nothing more to be said, perhaps; but if he's moved up to the top command and is working actively against US interests--which option would be best? To ignore him, and hope he does nothing, which tells al-Qaeda that all they need to do is begin actively promoting US citizens to higher positions within their organization? To declare war on Pakistan so we can go get him, and disrupt alliances in the Middle East, exactly like al-Qaeda planned from the start? Try to bully the host nation into accepting an extradition treaty they don't want to accept for OUR convenience?

When the War on Terror was declared, this was a very foreseeable consequence that nobody wanted to see, that we would have a war with no front lines; meaning the war would be in every nation and every city. How can you fight a war whose leaders might be citizens of a nation we aren't at war with? Or citizens who have a right to due process under our Constitution? Answer: You can't. The only real solution is to realize that we are not at war with al-Qaeda and therefore assassinating a leader of such a group, even if he is a US citizen, is wrong, because we don't need to do it. He's just a criminal, and dealing with criminals isn't really a job for a military strike. It's wrong when Israel assassinates the leaders of Hamas, and it's just as wrong when we do it because this should not be war.

But while it is, this will be necessary. The justification will be necessary, I mean. The act will still be wrong.
 
2013-02-05 04:35:03 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: When they publicly denounce the United States and their citizenship, flee the country, hook up with their new friends, and actively plot with them, then what?


So when a politician accuses someone of something, they can commit murder without due process?
 
2013-02-05 04:35:16 AM

Arumat: Keizer_Ghidorah: GAT_00: miss diminutive: So any American believed to be belonging to a terrorist organization and having done "recent activities" can be considered an "imminent threat" to the United States and can be subjected to targeted killing if capturing them poses "undue risk" to US forces?

I'm no constitutional or international law scholar, but those quoted words seem to be less than explicitly defined and open to some subjective interpretation.

The same justification used to kill Awlaki can be applied incredibly easily to drones firing on Americans inside the US who the police deem "too risky" to bring out for trial.  The scenario is effectively unchanged.

I love the conspiracy theorist paranoia of "If they deem Americans outside the US as traitors and launch missiles at them without a fair trial, then the government WILL start lobbing missiles at everyone in the US! In my mind it's always the worst case scenario and now a cruise missile will be streaking toward my house as I speak since I dared challenge the President! Today a known traitor in an Al Queda bunker, tomorrow the entire population of Denver, Colorado!". It really is amazing how quickly and easily people will mentally leap straight off the slippery slope to construct the worst scenarios.

And even if it did come to somewhat of that scary doomsday scenario, launching missiles still only applies to battlefields on foreign soil. If your treasonous ass is living in the US, the SWAT team will just drive into your house and carry you away to jail, unless you're some kind of supervillain with a reinforced evil lair filled with death traps.

As was stated earlier, the government often claims power in small steps.  Occasionally it even does so for benevolent reasons.  I don't claim to know that they'd extend this claimed authority to target American citizens any further, next week or in the next century.  On the other hand, I'd rather remove the possibility entirely without resorting to the bloody me ...


rense.com
I  see you've already taken the blue pill
 
2013-02-05 04:42:41 AM

RanDomino: such as if the president was a republican.


Oh yes, you've definitely got my number. *rolls eyes*

I don't care if it was Obama, Bush, Romney or Zombie Reagan. Call me when they kill somebody who's not an al-Qaeda member.

Personally, I think it's sort of sick that so many Republicans are defending al-Aulaqi purely because of who the president is. At least the pacifists' reason for being against his killing makes sense. I don't agree with them, but I can respect their position. "AL-QAEDA GOOD BECAUSE OBAMA BAD," though, is just insane.
 
2013-02-05 04:44:12 AM

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: When they publicly denounce the United States and their citizenship, flee the country, hook up with their new friends, and actively plot with them, then what?

So when a politician accuses someone of something, they can commit murder without due process?


Of course. This is the United States of America. We guarantee more liberty and justice for the rich and connected than everyone else.
 
2013-02-05 04:45:18 AM

Serious Black: I love that an Obama-nominated judge ruled it unconstitutional.


Unfortunately, Obama is no different than Bush (and sometimes even worse) when it comes to the war on terror.

It's hard to believe that he billed himself as a Constitutional Scholar who would put an end to the Bush lawlessness.
 
2013-02-05 04:49:16 AM
There is nothing magical about United States citizenship.  It is not more legal for cops to shoot foreign nationals than it is for them to shoot American citizens.  Citizenship confers the benefits it confers.  One of those isn't due process, that is granted to anyone under the power of American law.  There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.  If a person is outside American picketts, waging war, beyond the reach of the courts, they may yet be within sight of arms.  Their American-ness is irrelevant, at that point, only treaty obligations and political will (or lack there of) may shield them.  This is not an indictment of our code of laws, it is a credit to our logistical capability.  The difference between ordinance and ordnance may well be from where one chooses to fight their battles.
 
2013-02-05 04:49:33 AM
 I do have a big problem with those chickens coming home to roost and seeing drones flying over our homes and street. Monitoring us and even attacking us if we are a lawbreaker all under the pox blanket of safety and security.

Think it wont happen? Can you leave your house and go 10 miles without being under some kind of camera now? I sure didnt think that would happen 20 years ago
 
2013-02-05 04:56:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: here's the issue:

When President Bush declared A Global War on Terror, and a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle bought into it (and here we are a decade later with a lot of people still buying into it), he and they created a scenario where the battlefield had no boundaries. This war has no front line, and no country.

Therefore, our country and our leaders are in a position where, if any individual decides he is going to be part of this War, and take a position AGAINST the US, he can go anywhere in the world and still be part of it. And if this US citizen does that, and becomes an alleged traitor and abettor of the foes against the US, our government has only a few options:

1. They can attempt to extradite him by legal means and bring him back to the US to stand trial. Now, this would be preferable; but what if this individual is deemed to be and can be shown to be a "clear and present danger" to US interests? Or what if the nation to which he has fled has no extradition treaty with the US?

2. They can resort to military means to remove him, tantamount to declaring war on the host nation, in order to remove a person who has not yet committed a crime, against a country that has not committed any act of aggression against America. This is not a good option.

3. They can use extra-legal assassination against him, and kill him with minimum collateral damage, based on the theory that by his association with a terrorist organization and acts against the US, he has foregone his right to be treated as a citizen. This is not a good option, but preferable to declaring war against the host nation.

4. They can do nothing, and hope nothing bad happens by his actions, and send a message that the US will do nothing to its traitors. This is also not a good option, as it sends a message to potential traitors (and other criminals) that the US is disinclined to pursue them if it is inconvenient to do so; and sends a message to terrorist organizations that they should f ...


Excellent points made with a level head. I'll be curious to see if anyone can conjure a 5th scenario that reasonably counters your points.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:33 AM

Tickle Mittens: There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.


If you're spotted on an American battlefield, attacking our troops, nobody would give a damn if you were killed.

However, we're talking about killing citizens who are far from any battlefield.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, our government is not allowed to kill it's citizens on a politician's whim.

The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
 
2013-02-05 05:01:05 AM
Tickle Mittens~ ... "The difference between ordinance and ordnance may well be from where one chooses to fight their battles."

Nice.
 
2013-02-05 05:08:50 AM

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: When they publicly denounce the United States and their citizenship, flee the country, hook up with their new friends, and actively plot with them, then what?

So when a politician accuses someone of something, they can commit murder without due process?


Good job not answering my questions. Be glad I at least provide that courtesy.

What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did. He became an enemy combatant actively working against the US, and he ignored the ultimatum to return and stand trial. So yes, Obama did have the clearance to have him become a crater. How would you have handled it? Gathered up some police officers, send them overseas, have them arrest al-Awlaki, and bring him back? What if he was killed in the attempt, or all of the policemen were killed?

What you and others are doing is jumping from the situation with al-Awlaki, who publicly denounced his citizenship and fled and became an active enemy, aaaaaaaaall the way to "Obama could declare anyone he wants to as a terrorist because he/she said something slightly suspicious and launch a missile straight at a kindergarten!". It's conspiracy paranoia, plain and simple. And do you really think the US military would obey orders to launch missiles at its own cities?
 
2013-02-05 05:10:28 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Excellent points made with a level head. I'll be curious to see if anyone can conjure a 5th scenario that reasonably counters your points.

That's very easy to do.

The claim that it's a problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy in Yemen is rendered nonsensical by actions we had already taken in Yemen.

Here's The Nation's reporter Jeremy Scahil:

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

It's OK to murder innocent women and children in Yemen, but it's not OK to send in the marines to arrest someone?

Bullshiat.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:12 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did.


You detailed a politicians accusations.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:46 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Obama could declare anyone he wants to as a terrorist because he/she said something slightly suspicious


This part appears to be true these days, it's the world we live in post 9/11, I hear it changed everything.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:58 AM

DamnYankees: I gotta be honest - I don't get why this is new. Hasnt this been the known position of the US government for years?


Centuries, if you take the "senior level al-Qaeda" part  out.
 
2013-02-05 05:13:31 AM

BullBearMS: Tickle Mittens: There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.

If you're spotted on an American battlefield, attacking our troops, nobody would give a damn if you were killed.

However, we're talking about killing citizens who are far from any battlefield.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, our government is not allowed to kill it's citizens on a politician's whim.

The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


We can say certain things are natural rights guaranteed to all humans and chisel them into a piece of stone that will last for all eternity, but in the end, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who enforce it. If Congress gives the President the power to do X and the Supreme Court says X is kosher, it doesn't matter if it's really constitutional or not according to an objective standard.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:22 AM

ItchyMcDoogle: I do have a big problem with those chickens coming home to roost and seeing drones flying over our homes and street. Monitoring us and even attacking us if we are a lawbreaker all under the pox blanket of safety and security.

Think it wont happen? Can you leave your house and go 10 miles without being under some kind of camera now? I sure didnt think that would happen 20 years ago


I think you're confusing England for the United States, unless you believe traffic light cameras and mall security cameras are really beaming everything to NORAD.

BullBearMS: Tickle Mittens: There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.

If you're spotted on an American battlefield, attacking our troops, nobody would give a damn if you were killed.

However, we're talking about killing citizens who are far from any battlefield.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, our government is not allowed to kill it's citizens on a politician's whim.

The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


Then the next time an American citizen defects and leaves the country to join their new allies in battle against us, you can go over there and drag him back yourself. Better take some backup, though, I doubt he'll want to come willingly.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:32 AM

gweilo8888: bk3k: First, that this isn't really new in concept.  If you have a hostage situation - for example - and a sniper has the shot... you don't say "but that man is probably a US Citizen and we need to arrest him no matter what."  You tell the sniper to take the shot and hopefully save lives of other people who are probably also US citizens.

Strawman. This is more akin to somebody buying a knife, so we take him out with a sniper rifle because he might have used that knife against a US citizen at some indeterminate point in the future.

You don't shoot the guy who just bought the knife. You keep him under damned careful surveillance, learn what he is up to, gather as much information as possible on other contacts you should be surveilling, attempt to arrest and try him *legitimately* where possible if you have proof that he's really planning something, and kill him only as a last resort once he becomes an imminent danger to others.

It is, after all, perfectly possible that your original information was wrong and that he was never actually a threat, or that he could've been caught legitimately or turned sides and brought you a major intelligent coup that foils a larger plot, or even that he could be the person who one day sees the error of his ways and is able to persuade his fellow men to set down their arms and abandon their plans.

You don't kill somebody who is not an imminent threat. It doesn't make sense on any level.


LOL you accuse me of making a straw man, and then go on to compare a guy who is working to get US citizens killed - a very real man not made of straw - with a man who simply buys a knife and presumably has no plans at all for that knife.  But I'm making a straw man...

Really now?  You actually want me to pretend that is a valid argument?  Not happening.  Please try again.
 
2013-02-05 05:16:48 AM

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did.

You detailed a politicians accusations.


Any proof that it's only a politician's accusations, made on a whim so he could randomly murder someone for whatever reason?
 
2013-02-05 05:20:32 AM
So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?
 
2013-02-05 05:20:52 AM

Serious Black: BullBearMS: Tickle Mittens: There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.

If you're spotted on an American battlefield, attacking our troops, nobody would give a damn if you were killed.

However, we're talking about killing citizens who are far from any battlefield.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, our government is not allowed to kill it's citizens on a politician's whim.

The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

We can say certain things are natural rights guaranteed to all humans and chisel them into a piece of stone that will last for all eternity, but in the end, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who enforce it. If Congress gives the President the power to do X and the Supreme Court says X is kosher, it doesn't matter if it's really constitutional or not according to an objective standard.


And as we all know, everything always becomes the plot of some thriller B-movie where the three branches of government are really demons in disguise just waiting to blow up America for some reason. Today a person actively working for our enemy against us, tomorrow Los Angeles and New York City are nuked by our own B-2s!
 
2013-02-05 05:21:50 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did.

You detailed a politicians accusations.

Any proof that it's only a politician's accusations, made on a whim so he could randomly murder someone for whatever reason?


There is the entire American system of justice where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Even if a politician accuses them of something.
 
2013-02-05 05:21:57 AM
twocentsricher.files.wordpress.com

I'm still waiting for the orbiting assassination/popcorn laser.
 
2013-02-05 05:22:34 AM
Can't we just have a government who will stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign lands?

I was against it when Bush did it, I am against Obama doing it.

And what is the deal with you Farkers and blaming people who speak out against this as being for/with the other political party?

I don't have to like Pepsi to not want to drink Coke.  I can hate all soft drinks equally and want something healthier.
 
2013-02-05 05:23:02 AM

evil saltine: So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?


Not according to some people here, in fact you're in even more danger just staying here because our government can't wait to start lobbing missiles all over America because the president decided to draw names from a hat and declare them terrorists.
 
2013-02-05 05:25:49 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: evil saltine: So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?

Not according to some people here, in fact you're in even more danger just staying here because our government can't wait to start lobbing missiles all over America because the president decided to draw names from a hat and declare them terrorists.


He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.
 
2013-02-05 05:26:40 AM

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did.

You detailed a politicians accusations.

Any proof that it's only a politician's accusations, made on a whim so he could randomly murder someone for whatever reason?

There is the entire American system of justice where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Even if a politician accuses them of something.


He was given time to return and face a trial. He refused. Whatever happened after is on his own head. Like I said, you can run over there and drag them back yourself if you're so desperate to seek fairness for them.

You also didn't answer my request for proof about whether al-Awlaki was the victim of a random unjust accusation by a random politician.
 
2013-02-05 05:27:49 AM
thismodernworld.com
Yeah, there's no way this power will ever be abused...
 
2013-02-05 05:28:22 AM

Point02GPA: Keizer_Ghidorah: evil saltine: So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?

Not according to some people here, in fact you're in even more danger just staying here because our government can't wait to start lobbing missiles all over America because the president decided to draw names from a hat and declare them terrorists.

He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.


Now it's everyone on Capital Hill who wants to slaughter random Americans with missiles?
 
2013-02-05 05:28:55 AM
Here's the truth about the guy we murdered.

NYTimes:
in truth Mr. Awlaki is hardly significant in terms of American security. Contrary to what the Obama administration would have you believe, he has always been a minor figure in Al Qaeda, and making a big deal of him now is backfiring.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents in 1971, left the United States for good in 2002 before eventually settling in Yemen in 2004. He is believed to be hiding in the southern province of Shabwa, where his tribe, the Awaliq, holds sway.

He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn't even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a "terrorist rehabilitation" program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

Mr. Awlaki isn't the group's top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.


The man was guilty of talking smack about the US. Something well within his First Amendment rights.
 
2013-02-05 05:31:10 AM
We're justifying killing American citizens under bare suspicion of terrorist activity by citing the "laws of war".
We should probably, I dunno, declare war first.
 
2013-02-05 05:31:26 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Point02GPA: Keizer_Ghidorah: evil saltine: So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?

Not according to some people here, in fact you're in even more danger just staying here because our government can't wait to start lobbing missiles all over America because the president decided to draw names from a hat and declare them terrorists.

He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Now it's everyone on Capital Hill who wants to slaughter random Americans with missiles?


Things definitely have changed since 9/11.
 
2013-02-05 05:35:51 AM

Point02GPA: He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.


Who would put names in a hat? If you wear the hat they just fall out.
 
2013-02-05 05:36:06 AM

BullBearMS: Here's the truth about the guy we murdered.

NYTimes:
in truth Mr. Awlaki is hardly significant in terms of American security. Contrary to what the Obama administration would have you believe, he has always been a minor figure in Al Qaeda, and making a big deal of him now is backfiring.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents in 1971, left the United States for good in 2002 before eventually settling in Yemen in 2004. He is believed to be hiding in the southern province of Shabwa, where his tribe, the Awaliq, holds sway.

He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn't even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a "terrorist rehabilitation" program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

Mr. Awlaki isn't the group's top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.

The man was guilty of talking smack about the US. Something well within his First Amendment rights.


So he was still a member of Al Qaeda, and a propaganda threat. That's still enough of a warrant to do something about. Of course, had he not joined a terrorist group, he'd have been fine.

And it's still a far cry from the "OBAMA IS GONNA NUKE AMERICA BECAUSE HE DECLARED ALL OF US TERRORISTS!" scenario.
 
2013-02-05 05:37:06 AM
See I think we should care about killing people that don't deserve to be killed. I don't subscribe to the idea that "OMG it's an American citizen, now I care that we're bombing them!"
 
2013-02-05 05:37:59 AM

Point02GPA: Keizer_Ghidorah: Point02GPA: Keizer_Ghidorah: evil saltine: So I'm safe as long as I don't fly to Pakistan and join al-Qaida?

Not according to some people here, in fact you're in even more danger just staying here because our government can't wait to start lobbing missiles all over America because the president decided to draw names from a hat and declare them terrorists.

He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Now it's everyone on Capital Hill who wants to slaughter random Americans with missiles?

Things definitely have changed since 9/11.


Only in bad Bruce Willis movies and boring TV dramas. Seriously, reading this thread is like watching that stupid "Revolution" show.
 
2013-02-05 05:41:08 AM

evil saltine: Point02GPA: He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Who would put names in a hat? If you wear the hat they just fall out.


I think a name dropper might.
 
2013-02-05 05:41:43 AM

BullBearMS: Here's the truth about the guy we murdered.

NYTimes:
in truth Mr. Awlaki is hardly significant in terms of American security. Contrary to what the Obama administration would have you believe, he has always been a minor figure in Al Qaeda, and making a big deal of him now is backfiring.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents in 1971, left the United States for good in 2002 before eventually settling in Yemen in 2004. He is believed to be hiding in the southern province of Shabwa, where his tribe, the Awaliq, holds sway.

He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn't even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden's personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a "terrorist rehabilitation" program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

Mr. Awlaki isn't the group's top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.

The man was guilty of talking smack about the US. Something well within his First Amendment rights.


Again, just because there's an objective standard (or you think there is) saying this guy was within his rights as a human being to speak out against America, that's irrelevant. If they say Obama can murder, then he can murder. You want to change it? Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently. Make sure they nominate federal judges that think differently.
 
2013-02-05 05:44:40 AM

evil saltine: See I think we should care about killing people that don't deserve to be killed. I don't subscribe to the idea that "OMG it's an American citizen, now I care that we're bombing them!"


If I was president, I'd pull all of our people out of the Middle East and let them sort it out. Unfortunately Big Oil would likely send snipers after me if I did that, and I've have to listen to people screaming how I showed how weak America was and how uncaring we are for abandoning our poor ally Israel and other blech. But I'm a silly person who knows that nothing we do will really change anything over there since they've been going at it for centuries with no sign of stopping, and that we need to focus on our own country's problems first.

We screwed a few pooches during our anti-communism panic, and we're having to deal with the mutant hybrid puppies now. Is there really anything we CAN do?
 
2013-02-05 05:44:44 AM

Point02GPA: evil saltine: Point02GPA: He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Who would put names in a hat? If you wear the hat they just fall out.

I think a name dropper might.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-05 05:50:08 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did.

You detailed a politicians accusations.

Any proof that it's only a politician's accusations, made on a whim so he could randomly murder someone for whatever reason?


This guy's been doing the same thread, over and over, for a year and a half.  All that's going to happen now is a circular argument in walls of blue text, that will finally get so obnoxiously, threadjackingly big that you won't see that idiot for three weeks.  Then it starts all over again.
 
2013-02-05 05:50:10 AM

Serious Black: Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently.


We did.

The Democrats and Obama claimed to oppose Bush's actions unequivocally.

Then they continued and expanded them after they were elected.
 
2013-02-05 05:50:16 AM
Anyway why is it only on NPR I hear anything about us drone bombing places? Why not on ABC News or whatever? "Hey we used YOUR tax dollars to KILL 20 people today if they were Americans we would have a reporter there repeating the same shiat once every half-hour but you know they're some foreign people they got in with a bad crowd oh well"
I'm not saying Obama is doing a bad job necessarily but we should be a little more aware of what they're ordering on our behalf, right?
 
2013-02-05 05:50:55 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Keizer_Ghidorah: Any proof that it's only a politician's accusations, made on a whim so he could randomly murder someone for whatever reason?

I've had BullBear ignored as a balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic for a while. Actually, scrolling back through the thread, that seems to be the case for at least three quarters of the conspiracy nuts.

OrangeSnapper: [thismodernworld.com image 850x795]

Now, you want to talk about something Obama did that was actually wrong? That. Expanding the Patriot Act instead of throwing it out like a box of bad oysters. That was farking indefensible.


It's really sad that more and more of the right is devolving into that these days. What's funny is when you point out that the right wanted to start ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, they either completely melt down or go BSABSVR.

Oh, I definitely agree. The Patriot Act was bullshiat in 2001 and it's still bullshiat now. When the defense budget cuts start, the funding of the PA should be the first thing to go.
 
2013-02-05 05:52:49 AM

BullBearMS: 100 Watt Walrus: Excellent points made with a level head. I'll be curious to see if anyone can conjure a 5th scenario that reasonably counters your points.
That's very easy to do.

The claim that it's a problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy in Yemen is rendered nonsensical by actions we had already taken in Yemen.

Here's The Nation's reporter Jeremy Scahil:

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."

It's OK to murder innocent women and children in Yemen, but it's not OK to send in the marines to arrest someone?

Bullshiat.


Neither  Gyrfalcon nor I said either of these things were OK, and it is a "problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy" into any country where we don't have a green light from their government. I'd argue its potentially a much bigger problem than sending a drone strike, logistically at the very least, certainly in terms of risk, and probably in terms of foreign relations.

I believe  Gyrfalcon's point is that there are no easy answers to the unique problem of a citizen turing terrorist while overseas to a degree that they're considered a threat - at least as long as we're fighting a "war" with such pliable definitions and rules of engagement. Under such circumstances, the slippery slope argument is a valid one. But then so is the best-of-the-bad-choices solution for what was considered (rightly or wrongly) an clear and present threat.
 
2013-02-05 05:53:08 AM
And if i think the gov't would abuse a gun registry list to confiscate guns, libs call me a paranoid redneck that uses my gun to compensate for a small dick
 
2013-02-05 05:53:12 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Oh, I definitely agree. The Patriot Act was bullshiat in 2001 and it's still bullshiat now. When the defense budget cuts start, the funding of the PA should be the first thing to go.


Oh, that was a general "You," not "You-you." :) Honestly, you've been doing a better (and far less biatchy) job of voicing my opinions in this thread than I have.
 
2013-02-05 05:53:20 AM

Serious Black: The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

We can say certain things are natural rights guaranteed to all humans and chisel them into a piece of stone that will last for all eternity, but in the end, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who enforce it. If Congress gives the President the power to do X and the Supreme Court says X is kosher, it doesn't matter if it's really constitutional or not according to an objective standard.


There is no violation of the US Constitution.  He was not "held to answer for a crime."  His killing was not "punishment."  The only people arguing otherwise our people on your side of this issue.  It is intellectually dishonest.  He was killed - you might say - in the commission of a crime where the result would be as many dead US citizens as possible.

It is not even remotely important if you want to classify his as a traitor or not.  If a man is sniping from a tower, arrest is not gonna be your top priority - you END IT as soon as you can.  You do that, because you want to save as many lives as possible.

You would like to think this is different, but it isn't.  If these men where involved in the planning of acts to simply to kill as many as possible...  It doesn't much matter if their hand is literally on the trigger.  But in reference to the above, How does anyone KNOW that Whitman was gonna keep killing?  He might have decided that was enough seconds before getting shot himself.  That is perfectly possible, but not bloody likely.  He never got a trial but all the same killing him was perfectly justified.

I don't expect you to simply admit you are mistaken even if I went buried you in mountains of evidence.  Most people don't admit any such thing - even to themselves - no matter what.  But at least step out of your absolutist box and have a look around.  We live in a very, very grey world.  Absolutist positions will not serve you well in this world.

I initially had a problem with the ordered killing of US Citizens too, but I also spent a lot of time thinking about it.  Weighing all things, I arrived at another conclusion.

As I stated in my earlier post, I also support the idea that these things should eventually come to court.  If someone ordered the killing of a US Citizen, then that person(I don't care if he is the president) should stand before the court and present that -

1.  At the time the decision was made, there was a preponderance of evidence (at that time) that the person killed was going to murder US citizens.
2.  There was reasonable doubt (at that time) to believe that the person could be reasonably and safely apprehended.

And if the court cannot be satisfied, then that decision maker should be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.  That should stand as a safe guard to prevent "problematic" people from getting a kill order on their head.
 
2013-02-05 05:53:22 AM

BullBearMS: Serious Black: Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently.

We did.

The Democrats and Obama claimed to oppose Bush's actions unequivocally.

Then they continued and expanded them after they were elected.


They still have to work with Republicans.
 
2013-02-05 05:55:13 AM
My oh my, how the prevailing winds of fark have changed.

I remember back, not long ago, when just detaining a citizen without a trial was the absolute worst barbaric outrageous thing ever, and had all of fark at a high pitched scream.  Now - it's okay to just kill them without a trial.

I remember back when the idea of merely  wiretapping a citizen without a warrant was the absolute most outrageous thing ever, and had all of fark howling, absolutely  howling, about civil rights.  Now - it's okay to flat out kill them without a warrant.

Killing citizens is pretty much THE final frontier.

There's nothing in the patriot act that even comes close to being this contentious.  All other previously contentious actions - detaining citizens, spying on them, wiretapping, planting tracking devices on them, searching their houses, all without a warrant, all take a  distant back seat to this.  If you are okay with this, you are flat out okay with everything else.
 
2013-02-05 05:57:03 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Keizer_Ghidorah: Oh, I definitely agree. The Patriot Act was bullshiat in 2001 and it's still bullshiat now. When the defense budget cuts start, the funding of the PA should be the first thing to go.

Oh, that was a general "You," not "You-you." :) Honestly, you've been doing a better (and far less biatchy) job of voicing my opinions in this thread than I have.


I know, I was just agreeing with you about the PA :)

Personally I think it's time America finally regrew its balls and got over 9/11. Terrorists work through fear, and they've certainly succeeded to a sad degree.
 
2013-02-05 05:59:32 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: My oh my, how the prevailing winds of fark have changed.

I remember back, not long ago, when just detaining a citizen without a trial was the absolute worst barbaric outrageous thing ever, and had all of fark at a high pitched scream.  Now - it's okay to just kill them without a trial.

I remember back when the idea of merely  wiretapping a citizen without a warrant was the absolute most outrageous thing ever, and had all of fark howling, absolutely  howling, about civil rights.  Now - it's okay to flat out kill them without a warrant.

Killing citizens is pretty much THE final frontier.

There's nothing in the patriot act that even comes close to being this contentious.  All other previously contentious actions - detaining citizens, spying on them, wiretapping, planting tracking devices on them, searching their houses, all without a warrant, all take a  distant back seat to this.  If you are okay with this, you are flat out okay with everything else.


Now that was some amazing broad-brushing and generalizing while ignoring the plain and simple evidence right there.
 
2013-02-05 05:59:35 AM

bk3k: Serious Black: The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

We can say certain things are natural rights guaranteed to all humans and chisel them into a piece of stone that will last for all eternity, but in the end, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who enforce it. If Congress gives the President the power to do X and the Supreme Court says X is kosher, it doesn't matter if it's really constitutional or not according to an objective standard.

There is no violation of the US Constitution.  He was not "held to answer for a crime."  His killing was not "punishment."  The only people arguing otherwise our people on your side of this issue.  It is intellectually dishonest.  He was killed - you might say - in the commission of a crime where the result would be as many dead US citizens as possible.

It is not even remotely important if you want to classify his as a traitor or not.  If a man is sniping from a tower, arrest is not gonna be your top priority - you END IT as soon as you can.  You do that, because you want to save as many lives as possible.


I agree. Do you not seriously think the framers would have made "voluntarily making yourself a foreign combatant, in the most literal sense" as a reasonable exception to that clause?
 
2013-02-05 06:01:09 AM

evil saltine: Point02GPA: He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Who would put names in a hat? If you wear the hat they just fall out.


This is no time to outlaw hats.  If you outlaw hats, only the outlaws will have hats.
 
2013-02-05 06:01:32 AM

GAT_00: Somacandra: [www.personal.psu.edu image 226x250]

The Republican Party that cried "Wolf" has done it once too often. No one will care now. Thanks guys. You were too busy crapping over birth certificates, criticism of farking Nazis, fathering only girls, arugula, dijon mustard, Benghazi and President Obama's Magical Time Machine. Now there is a real job to do calling people on the carpet for a serious "Imperial Presidency" issue that needs to be hashed out in public discourse. And you're completely discredited. Thanks, ASSHOLES.

How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.  The President doesn't come close to having the authority to execute American citizens without trial.


WOW! I'm impressed, GAT
 
2013-02-05 06:02:36 AM

bk3k: evil saltine: Point02GPA: He who gets to put the names in the hat has the real power.

Who would put names in a hat? If you wear the hat they just fall out.

This is no time to outlaw hats.  If you outlaw hats, only the outlaws will have hats.


deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-05 06:06:17 AM

evil saltine: Anyway why is it only on NPR I hear anything about us drone bombing places? Why not on ABC News or whatever? "Hey we used YOUR tax dollars to KILL 20 people today if they were Americans we would have a reporter there repeating the same shiat once every half-hour but you know they're some foreign people they got in with a bad crowd oh well"
I'm not saying Obama is doing a bad job necessarily but we should be a little more aware of what they're ordering on our behalf, right?


One of the truly evil things that has leaked out is that the official US policy has been to claim that anyone we kill in one of our attacks is a "militant".

newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks

Here's one of the "militants" we murdered.

dl.dropbox.com

The attentive, unassuming young man sitting near me in the pictures is Tariq Aziz.

He was 16 when we met last October, just a year older than my own teenage son, although with his neatly trimmed beard and traditional shalwar kameez he looked more like the grown men alongside him.

Tariq had travelled many hours to the relative safety of Islamabad from his home in Waziristan, a rugged Pakistani tribal area on the border with Afghanistan.

He was there to join a protest about the plague of American 'drones' - the remote-controlled aircraft that have left a bloody trail of death and fury among the innocent villagers who struggle to earn a living in the unforgiving mountainous region.

I was there to distribute digital cameras so that the people from Waziristan could record the damage and death caused by the drones, as part of a campaign to prove that innocent civilians are dying.

Three days later he was dead. Like his cousin, who had died in April 2010 and whose identity card he clutched when we met, he was blown to pieces by a drone strike. The appalling irony of how his young life ended will stay with me for ever.

According to Tariq's family, at about noon on the day he died he had been driving with his younger cousin Waheed to pick up an aunt after her wedding.

A few hundred yards from his aunt's house, one homed in and struck Tariq's car. Both boys were dead, their bodies badly burned, when people arrived from the village. The rescue party had held back at first, as drones frequently strike again at those who come to rescue the injured, in what have become known as 'Samaritan attacks'.


Let's see if this child and his younger cousin were branded "militants" by the Obama administration.

In response to the death of Tariq, an anonymous US official was quoted in a piece carried on ABC News saying that the car was targeted by the CIA because 'the two people inside it were militants'.

Why yes. Yes they were.

Let's not even go into how morally bankrupt it is to routinely order a second missile strike on the people who attempt to render humanitarian aid to the targets of our first strikes.
 
2013-02-05 06:08:22 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I love the conspiracy theorist paranoia of "If they deem Americans outside the US as traitors and launch missiles at them without a fair trial, then the government WILL start lobbing missiles at everyone in the US! In my mind it's always the worst case scenario and now a cruise missile will be streaking toward my house as I speak since I dared challenge the President! Today a known traitor in an Al Queda bunker, tomorrow the entire population of Denver, Colorado!". It really is amazing how quickly and easily people will mentally leap straight off the slippery slope to construct the worst scenarios.



As a liberal who detested W.Bush, I was saying this during the W.Bush years also.  And yeah, I tagged most other self declared "liberals" on fark as opportunistic partisan nutjobs back then.  And they all considered me a "republican" for saying the above almost verbatim.
 
2013-02-05 06:10:06 AM
Seems like drone or other military attacks create just more people pissed off at us. Never ending.
 
2013-02-05 06:11:32 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Now that was some amazing broad-brushing and generalizing while ignoring the plain and simple evidence right there.


It's just factual observation.
 
2013-02-05 06:12:50 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Personally I think it's time America finally regrew its balls and got over 9/11. Terrorists work through fear, and they've certainly succeeded to a sad degree.


Absolutely. Tangentially, I really have to wonder why the group of right-wingers who screech about "GAWN' TAKE YER FREEDOMS" every time literally anything happens seem, for the most part, to be perfectly alright with the PA and its failed partial-birth abortion of an offspring, the TSA. I mean, I get that they'd never go against any of Bush's ideas, but even Obama's expansion didn't get a peep out of them.

Are they just allergic to finally being on the right side of an issue, or what? :P
 
2013-02-05 06:13:19 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Keizer_Ghidorah: Now that was some amazing broad-brushing and generalizing while ignoring the plain and simple evidence right there.

It's just factual observation.


Oh wait you're serious let me laugh even louder.jpg
 
2013-02-05 06:14:36 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Neither Gyrfalcon nor I said either of these things were OK, and it is a "problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy" into any country where we don't have a green light from their government.


This particular government is so in our lap, that it agreed to take the blame for the deaths of the innocent women and children our drone strikes had already killed, as US State Department cables revealed.

We had the green light to do whatever we wanted.

This is also a Government that routinely murdered it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful protests during the Arab spring, yet we continued to prop them up with money and weapons.

Claims that we couldn't send in the marines to this nation are complete and utter bullshiat.
 
2013-02-05 06:16:33 AM

bk3k: Oh wait you're serious let me laugh even louder.jpg


Sadly, content-free irrational mocking is probably as convincing and rational a response as I will get throughout the day.
 
2013-02-05 06:16:38 AM
Citizens will need our own drones to defend ourselves from tyrannical government drones.
 
2013-02-05 06:17:41 AM

Rincewind53: If you honestly think that the Left in America does not oppose drone strikes and hasn't been pretty vocal about it, then you haven't been following the Left.


The opposition to the drone strikes is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it would be if there were a Republican in the White House.

It's kind of like the Left's version of how most Republicans completely shut up about deficits when they have control of the government.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 06:20:48 AM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"


Correct, It's Murder

2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.

They chose to fight on a battle field against fellow American's.

3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

You can be targeted by accusation only.  Much like many of the GITMO prisoners will never see a trial because there is no evidence against them, except that a neighbor accused them of being a terrorist or a sympathiser.  In some cases it was just so the neighbor could steal their possessions.

If a citizen has committed treason then take them to court and let justice run it's course.  Murdering people based on speculation and accusation is immoral and anti-American.
 
2013-02-05 06:22:01 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BullBearMS: Serious Black: Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently.

We did.

The Democrats and Obama claimed to oppose Bush's actions unequivocally.

Then they continued and expanded them after they were elected.

They still have to work with Republicans.


The Patriot Act expired. Multiple times.

The Republicans didn't control the Congress or the White House.

So how did it get extended time after time?

The Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government." A vote is expected within several days.

Oh yea. Like that.

At this point, if you claim to be liberal but aren't voting Green, you're an idiot.
 
2013-02-05 06:25:17 AM
ThrobblefootSpectre:
bk3k: ThrobblefootSpectre: It's just factual observation.
Oh wait you're serious let me laugh even louder.jpg

Sadly, content-free irrational mocking is probably as convincing and rational a response as I will get throughout the day.


Content-free mocking of an amazingly arrogant yet content-free comment is more than you earned.  Keep the change.  You are welcome.
 
2013-02-05 06:29:53 AM

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: BullBearMS: Serious Black: Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently.

We did.

The Democrats and Obama claimed to oppose Bush's actions unequivocally.

Then they continued and expanded them after they were elected.

They still have to work with Republicans.

The Patriot Act expired. Multiple times.

The Republicans didn't control the Congress or the White House.

So how did it get extended time after time?

The Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government." A vote is expected within several days.

Oh yea. Like that.

At this point, if you claim to be liberal but aren't voting Green, you're an idiot.


Does a vote for somebody mean you automatically agree with 100% of their decisions?
 
2013-02-05 06:30:17 AM

BullBearMS: At this point, if you are a single issue voter and if this is your issue and if you claim to be liberal but aren't voting Green, you're an idiot.

  Otherwise you are probably just a realist.

FTFY.
 
2013-02-05 06:32:10 AM

Weaver95: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.


Hear, Hear.
 
2013-02-05 06:41:19 AM
 
2013-02-05 06:47:25 AM
great way to keep fueling the violent segments of american culture there federal gov't

you're supposed to scare people, not literally make their paranoia a reality
 
2013-02-05 06:49:46 AM

bk3k: Content-free mocking of an amazingly arrogant yet content-free comment is more than you earned.  Keep the change.  You are welcome.


Lol, I'm on your side.  I'm defending Obama on this one.

The only catch is, I defended Bush on the same issues.  Including the patriot act, and many lesser things, such as warrantless wiretapping, warrentless searches.  Issues that aren't nearly as serious as just warrantless KILLING people.

I'm actually glad we are all on the same page now.  The only sad thing is that I can't take seriously most of the people who flip flop depending on the letter after the president's name, and what they gert spoon fed by the media.

Oddly, though I disagree with BullBearMS, he is one of the very few people on fark I can take seriously.  His heartfelt opinions don't spin like a top depending on the wind direction and partisan politics.  And neither do mine.
 
2013-02-05 06:52:15 AM

Red Barchetta: Can't we just have a government who will stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign lands?

I was against it when Bush did it, I am against Obama doing it.

And what is the deal with you Farkers and blaming people who speak out against this as being for/with the other political party?

I don't have to like Pepsi to not want to drink Coke.  I can hate all soft drinks equally and want something healthier.


Stop playing the game if you can't play by the rules... There is no third party peace corp is Chess...
 
2013-02-05 06:52:18 AM
The United States government needs to be stopped NOW.  The better countries of the world should for an alliance to take down this axis of evil.
 
2013-02-05 06:57:03 AM
On the one hand I want to say "Goddam it so much! How can a government go down that slippery slope?"

On the other hand, it's brown people with too many vowels and consonants in the wrong place who are actively trying to kill Real American Heros Tm.

Meh.

/dnrtfc
 
2013-02-05 06:57:59 AM

Xenomech: The United States government needs to be stopped NOW.  The better countries of the world should for an alliance to take down this axis of evil.


We get it.  He's black.
 
2013-02-05 06:58:06 AM
I'm not in favor of giving our government carte blanche to kill people, including our citizens, but aren't there some cases where it's necessary to kill people without trial? Like the crazy guy who killed a bus driver, kidnapped a kid then hid in his bunker; the government killed him without any trial because that was the only way to end that situation without greater bloodshed. If Americans are going to basically declare war on the US then flee to some part of the world were it is impossible to arrest them, then what choice is there other than a drone strike (besides letting them work against our nation in safety)?
 
2013-02-05 06:58:10 AM

Red Barchetta: And what is the deal with you Farkers and blaming people who speak out against this as being for/with the other political party? I don't have to like Pepsi to not want to drink Coke.  I can hate all soft drinks equally and want something healthier.


I never said that everybody who disagrees is "With the other party" (for the record, I'm not a Democrat, I just consider the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils right now), but many of them are. It seems to break down into four groups: Bipartisan people who don't see much of a problem with this case specifically (like Keizer and I), bipartisan people who are consistently against government military action and can express a logical reason as to why (like Serious Black), knee-jerk Republicans who just really hate Obama (like BullBear) and tin-foil Republicans who think that their toast burning in the mornings is a liberal conspiracy, though there's a lot of crossover between the last two.
 
2013-02-05 07:00:56 AM
BullBearMS: *tragic story of pakistani kid*

That's the "new wave" though.  If the definition of something doesn't work for you just change it and don't tell anybody.  Somebody dies in a drone strike that shouldn't have?  Change the definition of "militant" until they fit. Kids can't pass basic reading and math skills tests in high school?  Change the definition of "pass" until you can shout from the mountain top that more kids are passing than ever before.  Your congressional district is starting to have hostile voters creep in?  Change the district boundaries until you can practically guarantee you'll be re-elected.
 
2013-02-05 07:04:27 AM

BullBearMS: 100 Watt Walrus: Neither Gyrfalcon nor I said either of these things were OK, and it is a "problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy" into any country where we don't have a green light from their government.

This particular government is so in our lap, that it agreed to take the blame for the deaths of the innocent women and children our drone strikes had already killed, as US State Department cables revealed.

We had the green light to do whatever we wanted.

This is also a Government that routinely murdered it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful protests during the Arab spring, yet we continued to prop them up with money and weapons.

Claims that we couldn't send in the marines to this nation are complete and utter bullshiat.


Neither of us made that claim either. The larger conversation here, as I understand it, is not about what's already happened. It's about what this incident, and the decisions that lead to it, mean for the future. If there's a next time, the target may not be in Yemen.
 
2013-02-05 07:05:04 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: knee-jerk Republicans who just really hate Obama (like BullBear)


No.  I have to correct this.   I've  been here enough years to specifically remember BullBearMS was extremely passionately outspoken against W.Bush.  His opinions haven't changed a single iota.  And I still disagree with him, even through two different presidents.  I also remember that his opinions were thoroughly welcomed by democrats who opposed Bush over the patriot act (and everything else) at the time.
 
2013-02-05 07:08:10 AM
"Operational terrorist leaders actively engaged in activities leading up to imminent attack with no recent evidence of abandoning such activities"  is somehow vague and less important than the incredibly broad classification of "American citizen".


Yeah, makes a ton of sense.
 
2013-02-05 07:08:43 AM

100 Watt Walrus: BullBearMS: 100 Watt Walrus: Neither Gyrfalcon nor I said either of these things were OK, and it is a "problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy" into any country where we don't have a green light from their government.

This particular government is so in our lap, that it agreed to take the blame for the deaths of the innocent women and children our drone strikes had already killed, as US State Department cables revealed.

We had the green light to do whatever we wanted.

This is also a Government that routinely murdered it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful protests during the Arab spring, yet we continued to prop them up with money and weapons.

Claims that we couldn't send in the marines to this nation are complete and utter bullshiat.

Neither of us made that claim either. The larger conversation here, as I understand it, is not about what's already happened. It's about what this incident, and the decisions that lead to it, mean for the future. If there's a next time, the target may not be in Yemen.


Here, let me quote that for you.

Gyrfalcon: 2. They can resort to military means to remove him, tantamount to declaring war on the host nation, in order to remove a person who has not yet committed a crime, against a country that has not committed any act of aggression against America. This is not a good option.

 
2013-02-05 07:09:20 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Red Barchetta: And what is the deal with you Farkers and blaming people who speak out against this as being for/with the other political party? I don't have to like Pepsi to not want to drink Coke.  I can hate all soft drinks equally and want something healthier.

I never said that everybody who disagrees is "With the other party" (for the record, I'm not a Democrat, I just consider the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils right now), but many of them are. It seems to break down into four groups: Bipartisan people who don't see much of a problem with this case specifically (like Keizer and I), bipartisan people who are consistently against government military action and can express a logical reason as to why (like Serious Black), knee-jerk Republicans who just really hate Obama (like BullBear) and tin-foil Republicans who think that their toast burning in the mornings is a liberal conspiracy, though there's a lot of crossover between the last two.


There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who fit into that last category. I'm still waiting for the Trollface-in-chief to say breathing oxygen is good so that these people die from asphyxiation.
 
2013-02-05 07:12:49 AM

NFA: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"

Correct, It's Murder

2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.

They chose to fight on a battle field against fellow American's.

3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

You can be targeted by accusation only.  Much like many of the GITMO prisoners will never see a trial because there is no evidence against them, except that a neighbor accused them of being a terrorist or a sympathiser.  In some cases it was just so the neighbor could steal their possessions.

If a citizen has committed treason then take them to court and let justice run it's course.  Murdering people based on speculation and accusation is immoral and anti-American.



And how are AQ operatives not operating on a battlefield against "fellow americans" if they have dual citizenship?

Are you comparing the initial rounding up of suspects in a target-rich environment after the confusion and terror of 9/11 to ongoing intel operations against AQ?  You really think they're the same?
 
2013-02-05 07:13:27 AM
I don't know what's scarier, this memo or the people in this thread who have blind and utter devotion to a political party.
 
pc
2013-02-05 07:14:15 AM

BullBearMS: evil saltine: 
One of the truly evil things that has leaked out is that the official US policy has been to claim that anyone we kill in one of our attacks is a "militant".

newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks

Here's one of the "militants" we murdered.

[dl.dropbox.com image 634x433]



I'pretty sure these allegations are true

The problem here is the "source" of article
 
2013-02-05 07:17:59 AM
It's Ok when Barry does it, right?
 
2013-02-05 07:22:57 AM
Because they can?
 
2013-02-05 07:24:41 AM
If you're actively plotting against your own country, then you get what's coming to you...

Having said that, this is one time I think the "Slippery Slope" argument is valid. There's no telling how this will be used and it seems vague enough to give current and future administrations a wide range. Not good, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, that Pandora's Box was opened a long time ago, and it isn't going to get closed anytime soon.
 
2013-02-05 07:25:30 AM

pc: BullBearMS: evil saltine:
One of the truly evil things that has leaked out is that the official US policy has been to claim that anyone we kill in one of our attacks is a "militant".

newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks

Here's one of the "militants" we murdered.

[dl.dropbox.com image 634x433]


I'pretty sure these allegations are true

The problem here is the "source" of article



Perhaps you would prefer the NY Times?

LAST Friday, I took part in an unusual meeting in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey.

On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.

When it was my turn to speak, I mentioned the official American position: that these were precision strikes and no innocent civilian had been killed in 15 months. My comment was met with snorts of derision.

I told the elders that the only way to convince the American people of their suffering was to accumulate physical proof that civilians had been killed. Three of the men, at considerable personal risk, had collected the detritus of half a dozen missiles; they had taken 100 pictures of the carnage.

In one instance, they matched missile fragments with a photograph of a dead child, killed in August 2010 during the C.I.A.'s period of supposed infallibility. This made their grievances much more tangible.

Collecting evidence is a dangerous business. The drones are not the only enemy. The Pakistani military has sealed the area off from journalists, so the truth is hard to come by. One man investigating drone strikes that killed civilians was captured by the Taliban and held for 63 days on suspicion of spying for the United States.

At the end of the day, Tariq stepped forward. He volunteered to gather proof if it would help to protect his family from future harm. We told him to think about it some more before moving forward; if he carried a camera he might attract the hostility of the extremists.

But the militants never had the chance to harm him. On Monday, he was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.
 
2013-02-05 07:31:42 AM

Befuddled: I'm not in favor of giving our government carte blanche to kill people, including our citizens, but aren't there some cases where it's necessary to kill people without trial? Like the crazy guy who killed a bus driver, kidnapped a kid then hid in his bunker; the government killed him without any trial because that was the only way to end that situation without greater bloodshed. If Americans are going to basically declare war on the US then flee to some part of the world were it is impossible to arrest them, then what choice is there other than a drone strike (besides letting them work against our nation in safety)?


Are you high? Do you honestly want to set that precedent? "Oh, it's okay for us to shoot this guy in the head, we're really really really sure he deserves it"
 
2013-02-05 07:31:49 AM

Weaver95: problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days.  that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.


IMHO this is what they are aiming for. The Patriot Act started it and this is just a follow up.
 
2013-02-05 07:32:30 AM

doglover: GAT_00: WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

Prove it.

Well, pull a gun on a cop or armed soldier.

The law is people who obey it. Being armed in a war zone makes you fair game.


Unless you're a Real American (tm). Then you can carry anywhere you like.
 
2013-02-05 07:32:51 AM

BullBearMS: I think you're wrong about this, but I also appreciate consistency.



I find it quite funny the people here describing you as "balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic".  Because during the Bush years here on fark, I might have described you as the most extreme fringe left anti-Bush person on fark.  :-)

Regardless, as I said, I now consider you one of the few people on fark I can take seriously.  Because you have a stance on an issue, rather than blindly following a political party or agenda driven opportunism.  In all my years on fark, I've noted maybe 5 people who stick to their principles. You'd probably be one of the few interesting people with whom to have a drink and discuss this face to face.
 
2013-02-05 07:35:41 AM
We can see where this is going. The military is already upping their War on Drugs in South America to fight off spending cuts. Soon, any cop (Justice) can kill any drug possessor (obvious link to terrorist funding).

I'm not trolling - we saw how the Patriot Act was immediately used to go after drugs and not terrorists.
 
2013-02-05 07:37:11 AM
Feh. Everyone was warned about this under Bush and were mostly unconcerned. Global war! Smoke them out of their holes! fark yeah! Told ya so.

The executive doesn't give up a power once it has it, and if it has it, it's going to use it.
 
2013-02-05 07:38:32 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: BullBearMS: I think you're wrong about this, but I also appreciate consistency.


I find it quite funny the people here describing you as "balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic".  Because during the Bush years here on fark, I might have described you as the most extreme fringe left anti-Bush person on fark.  :-)

Regardless, as I said, I now consider you one of the few people on fark I can take seriously.  Because you have a stance on an issue, rather than blindly following a political party or agenda driven opportunism.  In all my years on fark, I've noted maybe 5 people who stick to their principles. You'd probably be one of the few interesting people with whom to have a drink and discuss this face to face.


This is probably the best compliment I have seen on Fark in a long time.
 
2013-02-05 07:40:32 AM
www.biography.com
"Hey guys, what's goin' on in this thread?"
 
2013-02-05 07:52:49 AM

Tat'dGreaser: ThrobblefootSpectre: BullBearMS: I think you're wrong about this, but I also appreciate consistency.


I find it quite funny the people here describing you as "balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic".  Because during the Bush years here on fark, I might have described you as the most extreme fringe left anti-Bush person on fark.  :-)

Regardless, as I said, I now consider you one of the few people on fark I can take seriously.  Because you have a stance on an issue, rather than blindly following a political party or agenda driven opportunism.  In all my years on fark, I've noted maybe 5 people who stick to their principles. You'd probably be one of the few interesting people with whom to have a drink and discuss this face to face.

This is probably the best compliment I have seen on Fark in a long time.


I was once told that I must like sucking Dubya's cock because of my stance on abortion. That was my favorite compliment personally.
 
2013-02-05 07:55:30 AM

nmrsnr: So, I'm generally a libby lib-lib, but in this case I don't have much problem with the government's finding. Where, exactly, is people's problem with this?

In order to help me clarify, tell me which, if any, of the following scenarios are problematic:

If there's an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there an Al Qaida base in Afghanistan, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

If there is an Al Qaida base in Yemen, and one of the people in the building is American, do you have a problem with the US military launching a missile to blow up the people inside?

To me these are all roughly equivalent scenarios, and I do not have a problem with any of them. I may have a problem with a specific judgement call the President may make, but not with the general right of the President to make it. Being American doesn't make you immune from being a target if you side with the enemy in a battle (IMHO).


Your problem here is you're a self described libby-lib-lib. Every single one of your examples, or any more examples you can think of to justify this in your mind, should have you seethingly against killing anyone in relation to the war on terror, because, B-B-B-Bush.
 
2013-02-05 07:56:23 AM

Serious Black: I was once told that I must like sucking Dubya's cock because of my stance on abortion. That was my favorite compliment personally.


Ahhh sweet sweet political discourse
 
2013-02-05 07:56:26 AM
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

/shrugs, I have no problem with this. In a war, you choose sides. You are either on our side or you aren't. Just because you don't have a battle plan right in front of you ready to implement within hours, is moot. If you are stupid enough to join up with a raghead bunch of religious zealots that murder innocent people for fun and profit, then you deserve to get a hellfire dropped in your lap. You being a US citizen is not the point, you gave that up when you joined forces with the enemy who is sworn to kill us. NON story. It's more a "cover our ass" statement that states the obvious. We can kill the enemy, even if it's an American citizen who's gone over to the other side.
 
2013-02-05 08:01:31 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: /shrugs, I have no problem with this. In a war, you choose sides. You are either on our side or you aren't. Just because you don't have a battle plan right in front of you ready to implement within hours, is moot. If you are stupid enough to join up with a raghead bunch of religious zealots that murder innocent people for fun and profit, then you deserve to get a hellfire dropped in your lap. You being a US citizen is not the point, you gave that up when you joined forces with the enemy who is sworn to kill us. NON story. It's more a "cover our ass" statement that states the obvious. We can kill the enemy, even if it's an American citizen who's gone over to the other side.


Ok, regardless of whose side I'm on, that was uncalled for.
 
2013-02-05 08:05:27 AM
If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?
 
2013-02-05 08:21:17 AM
How far we've come.  Clinton didn't want to capture bin Laden because he felt there wasn't enough legal evidence to convict him.  Then he declined to hit him with a missile attack because he was worried about collateral damage.

Now we have the President making up legal justification to target American citizens (and yes, they may be terrorists but the Constitution still applies...still should have a right to a trial and if convicted THEN execute for treason.

Oh, and Guantanmo is still open for business and a couple hundred "enemy combatants" are being held without trial...which is still more than an American citizen targeted by a drone strike would get.

Hope and Change indeed.

I find it rather funny that all of the liberals in this thread are leaping to Obama's offense...considering if a conservative took the same unilateral action against an American citizen they'd have a conniption.

Hypocrisy, how does it work.

/hates both parties.
 
2013-02-05 08:24:10 AM

doglover: If you don't want to get blown up, don't engage in terrorist activities.

If you don't blow yourself up Uncle Sam will do it for you.


The point is the commander in charge of the kill order doesn't even have to prove a link to terrorist activity. There is no judicial hearing. It is the word of an official.

Secondly the strikes generally take out more than only the intended target.

Third the administration put out an order that any male of combat age killed in a strike is a combatant, no other proof necessary.

It is a farked up policy.
 
2013-02-05 08:24:19 AM

Tat'dGreaser: ThrobblefootSpectre: BullBearMS: I think you're wrong about this, but I also appreciate consistency.


I find it quite funny the people here describing you as "balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic".  Because during the Bush years here on fark, I might have described you as the most extreme fringe left anti-Bush person on fark.  :-)

Regardless, as I said, I now consider you one of the few people on fark I can take seriously.  Because you have a stance on an issue, rather than blindly following a political party or agenda driven opportunism.  In all my years on fark, I've noted maybe 5 people who stick to their principles. You'd probably be one of the few interesting people with whom to have a drink and discuss this face to face.

This is probably the best compliment I have seen on Fark in a long time.


Awwww...  I'm having post shower blushing time
 
2013-02-05 08:26:52 AM

doglover: GAT_00: WTF Indeed: Because once you take up arms against the United States or any nation for that matter, you forfeit your citizenship?

Prove it.

Well, pull a gun on a cop or armed soldier.

The law is people who obey it. Being armed in a war zone makes you fair game.


The majority of all strikes are not against active combatants. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
 
2013-02-05 08:41:13 AM
BraveNewCheneyWorld
If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen. That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because, "something something Republicans are worse something something". Geez, get with the program.
 
2013-02-05 08:44:05 AM
Hmm, I wonder whether this memo has anything to do with why the Obama administration wants to disarm American citizens...
 
2013-02-05 08:47:56 AM
this can be easily abused as even the article said evidence is not necessary; everyone could theoretically be called a leader or member of some militant group, whether it is real or not, and killed without due course.
 
2013-02-05 09:01:09 AM
You people so willing to trade freedom for security, deserve and will receive neither.

Fark all who think this is ok.
 
2013-02-05 09:01:10 AM

SlowTimedRapid: Hmm, I wonder whether this memo has anything to do with why the Obama administration wants to disarm American citizens...


Fortunately for you, it has absolutely zero to do with it.  Now, go put your tinfoil hat back on.
 
2013-02-05 09:02:08 AM
MEMO dated during the Obama administration.  You know because Americans are not entitled to a trial or anything like that.  Man is Obama competely disregarding the constitution more and more now that he was elected.
 
2013-02-05 09:05:05 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?


Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward
 
2013-02-05 09:08:18 AM
I love the idiots in here who are holding their own government less accountable to them than another government. What if Iran decided you were an enemy, so they targeted and killed you? This is the same thing - and you are giving the US the right to decide you should die. Our country was designed so that we didn't give that power to anyone.
 
2013-02-05 09:12:05 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward


Do you honestly think your speculative scenario is worse than giving all future presidents the authority to kill U.S. citizens at will?
 
2013-02-05 09:14:42 AM

cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.


I dunno... this seems rather treasonous, to me.  Since the memo claimed that no evidence was required, I better call in a drone strike on you.
 
2013-02-05 09:15:40 AM

Weaver95: problem is...the definition of treason gets tossed around rather casually these days. that's what worries me - that a US president will at some point decide that someone he doesn't like is a de facto terrorist and try to off 'em, legal definition be damned.


"You're a terrorist if we say you are" has been the law since Bush Jr.
 
2013-02-05 09:17:36 AM

GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.


The leftist I know have been saying this.  No one listens.
 
2013-02-05 09:18:54 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward

Do you honestly think your speculative scenario is worse than giving all future presidents the authority to kill U.S. citizens at will?


Seeing as the memo specifically states that the targeted people are senior AQ operatives or their partners, I would not consider them to be deserving of the protections of US citizenship to begin with.  So, no, I'd rather not risk more of our armed men/women to go half way around the world to pick up a traitor, all so they can drag him back here for a trial that will take too long, cost too much, and may yet be bungled badly enough to let the accused walk back home and shoot at us again.
 
2013-02-05 09:21:10 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward

Do you honestly think your speculative scenario is worse than giving all future presidents the authority to kill U.S. citizens at will?


He also appears to be in favor of abandoning the moral/ethical high ground for short-term gains.  Even if we didn't give them new martyrs every 2 weeks/days/hours they'd find some other stupid thing to use as propaganda, or failing that, just make something up.  The only way to slow their recruiting is to prove to these people that we are not "The Great Satan", and that if they'd stop with their anti-U.S. crap we'd stop blowing them up.  Unfortunately, thanks to the CIA and all our meddling in the region it's become an all but impossible task.
 
2013-02-05 09:21:49 AM

Standard Deviant: I love the idiots in here who are holding their own government less accountable to them than another government. What if Iran decided you were an enemy, so they targeted and killed you? This is the same thing - and you are giving the US the right to decide you should die. Our country was designed so that we didn't give that power to anyone.


Absolutely

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This memo specifically violates the 5th amendment by declaring the ability to kill people when they're not "in actual service".
 
2013-02-05 09:23:13 AM

jenlen: GAT_00: Somacandra: GAT_00: How about what's left of the left steps up and collectively says "This is wrong" for a change.

I'll get right on the horn to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman about that. I'm sure this will all be news to them.

How the fark do you not have a problem with the President executing American citizens?  How does everyone not have a problem with that?

I have to applaud you for taking a stand for your principles here. I agree with you, regardless of who is President - he/she should not be deciding who to "take out" unilaterally, period.

Far too many on the Politics tab are polarized political hacks:  "Bush? Drone strikes? EEVILLLLL!"  "Obama? Drone strikes? Eh, they had it coming and he's doing a good job. Non-story."


This may be the first time I agree with GAT.  But c'mon, some of the same people who were so quick to bust out that Ben Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety " over wire taps on "Americans who may deserve it" seem to have no issue with drone attacks on "American citizens who may deserve it."  So either they are partisan hacks or believe that wire taps are worse than targeted killings.

Personally, I think in theory its not the worst idea, to be able to target US citizens who are without a doubt terrorists, but the precedent that would be established, as noted by others above, is incredibly dangerous.
 
2013-02-05 09:24:53 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Because the alternative is:

1. Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)


The claim that we couldn't send the Marines into Yemen to capture these guys is particularly retarded given the fact that:

1.) We routinely murder Pakistani citizens despite the fact that Pakistan is a nation armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

2.) We have already invaded Pakistan very recently.

3.) We own the government of Yemen to such an extent that they were willing to accept the blame for the first couple of dozen civilians we killed back when the US was still trying to deny it's drone strikes.
 
2013-02-05 09:24:56 AM

Arumat: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward

Do you honestly think your speculative scenario is worse than giving all future presidents the authority to kill U.S. citizens at will?

He also appears to be in favor of abandoning the moral/ethical high ground for short-term gains.  Even if we didn't give them new martyrs every 2 weeks/days/hours they'd find some other stupid thing to use as propaganda, or failing that, just make something up.  The only way to slow their recruiting is to prove to these people that we are not "The Great Satan", and that if they'd stop with their anti-U.S. crap we'd stop blowing them up.  Unfortunately, thanks to the CIA and all our meddling in the region it's become an all but impossible task.


They'll stop their anti-US crap when they abandon their extremist religious views that hold literally everyone else to be "infidels", and "worthy only of death".  The actions of Western powers in the region over the years has not helped, but the only thing that will make them stop is when they abandon their zealotry.  Seeing as that will never happen, the civilized world has no choice but to continue to fight them, and eliminate them.
 
2013-02-05 09:27:13 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Seeing as the memo specifically states that the targeted people are senior AQ operatives or their partners, I would not consider them to be deserving of the protections of US citizenship to begin with.  So, no, I'd rather not risk more of our armed men/women to go half way around the world to pick up a traitor, all so they can drag him back here for a trial that will take too long, cost too much, and may yet be bungled badly enough to let the accused walk back home and shoot at us again.


You're assuming that they are indeed a senior Al Qaeda member based on the testimony of god himself.  It's an intelligence analyst who makes the call, and they make mistakes ALL THE TIME.  An accusation should never be synonymous with conviction.
 
2013-02-05 09:27:57 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Standard Deviant: I love the idiots in here who are holding their own government less accountable to them than another government. What if Iran decided you were an enemy, so they targeted and killed you? This is the same thing - and you are giving the US the right to decide you should die. Our country was designed so that we didn't give that power to anyone.

Absolutely

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This memo specifically violates the 5th amendment by declaring the ability to kill people when they're not "in actual service".


I see your point, but I guarantee you, the defense mounted to that will be "war on terror".
 
2013-02-05 09:28:37 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you support the assassination of U.S. citizens who are not involved in hostilities because there is a mere accusation (and yes, without a trial it can only be an accusation) that someone is a terrorist, then you have no business being a U.S. citizen.  That's 3rd world dictator behavior, how on earth can you support that, even if it is your guy in the White House?

Because the alternative is:

1.  Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive  (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)
2.  Extradite them to the US for trial
3.  Subject said person to a trial, which there is never a gurantee of winning
4.  Assuming you win #3, have him executed
5.  While #1-4 are ongoing, the target becomes a martyr to his cause, and gins up more local support in his home country
6.  #5 creates more targets, see #1, forcing us to do this over and over again, with reduced odds of success going forward

Do you honestly think your speculative scenario is worse than giving all future presidents the authority to kill U.S. citizens at will?

Seeing as the memo specifically states that the targeted people are senior AQ operatives or their partners, I would not consider them to be deserving of the protections of US citizenship to begin with.  So, no, I'd rather not risk more of our armed men/women to go half way around the world to pick up a traitor, all so they can drag him back here for a trial that will take too long, cost too much, and may yet be bungled badly enough to let the accused walk back home and shoot at us again.


Yes, how terrible that someone might be found innocent. We really should get rid of those pesky things called "rights."
 
2013-02-05 09:31:19 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Seeing as the memo specifically states that the targeted people are senior AQ operatives or their partners, I would not consider them to be deserving of the protections of US citizenship to begin with.  So, no, I'd rather not risk more of our armed men/women to go half way around the world to pick up a traitor, all so they can drag him back here for a trial that will take too long, cost too much, and may yet be bungled badly enough to let the accused walk back home and shoot at us again.

You're assuming that they are indeed a senior Al Qaeda member based on the testimony of god himself.  It's an intelligence analyst who makes the call, and they make mistakes ALL THE TIME.  An accusation should never be synonymous with conviction.


Yes, and cops routinely bust into the wrong homes too.  Delivery boys go to the wrong apartment, evictions are served on the wrong house, etc.  the point is, mistakes can and will happen when humans are involved at any point.  The best we can do is to try to mitigate them.  Frankly, I'd have more faith in the conviction route if we had better historical results to show for it.  Yet, dozens of AQ operatives still sit in Guantanamo, eating our tax dollars for lunch, while our "best lawyers" try to figure out WTF to do with them.

Drones may not follow perfect commands from their operators, but their damn more efficient than lawyers.
 
2013-02-05 09:35:19 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Yes, and cops routinely bust into the wrong homes too.  Delivery boys go to the wrong apartment, evictions are served on the wrong house, etc.  the point is, mistakes can and will happen when humans are involved at any point.


You're seriously equating a mistakenly delivered pizza to a drone strike on an innocent person?  Ok.. you're just trolling I take it.
 
2013-02-05 09:35:55 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Yes, and cops routinely bust into the wrong homes too.  Delivery boys go to the wrong apartment, evictions are served on the wrong house, etc.  the point is, mistakes can and will happen when humans are involved at any point.  The best we can do is to try to mitigate them.  Frankly, I'd have more faith in the conviction route if we had better historical results to show for it.  Yet, dozens of AQ operatives still sit in Guantanamo, eating our tax dollars for lunch, while our "best lawyers" try to figure out WTF to do with them.

Drones may not follow perfect commands from their operators, but their damn more efficient than lawyers.


Lawyers exist so that the government does not simply eliminate people's rights without due process.  If all we care about is the result, then why not just shoot everyone at Guantanamo Bay right now, right in the head? After all, it's certainly more efficient than giving them their rights and using lawyers.
 
2013-02-05 09:42:06 AM

BullBearMS: lordjupiter: And how are AQ operatives not operating on a battlefield against "fellow americans" if they have dual citizenship?

There's always the completely obvious reason that we don't even have a battlefield in Yemen where these two American citizens were murdered.


What's even more obvious is that there CAN'T be a set battlefield for a global conflict based on terrorist tactics and diverse targets.

What's even more obvious is that there CAN'T be a set, physical "battlefield" for a global conflict based on terrorist tactics and diverse targets.  Are you saying the physical location is what determines whether or not someone is attacking you?  Violence against a country only counts if it's on a "designated" piece of land you determine to be a "battlefield"?
 
2013-02-05 09:47:07 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Yes, and cops routinely bust into the wrong homes too.  Delivery boys go to the wrong apartment, evictions are served on the wrong house, etc.  the point is, mistakes can and will happen when humans are involved at any point.

You're seriously equating a mistakenly delivered pizza to a drone strike on an innocent person?  Ok.. you're just trolling I take it.


No, I was using that as an example of mistakes being made.  Of course they aren't the same, but it was nice of you to project that onto me.
 
2013-02-05 09:48:25 AM
So ....it's a credibility issue?  Then...

--Use of "intel" to strike military targets in war = #1 superpower flexing technological superiority
--But use of "intel" to strike terrorist targets abroad = some random guy's opinion on who's a terrorist and who isn't

Or is it really just paranoia that YOU will somehow be classified as an active AQ leader planning to attack the U.S., and the drones will be turned on YOU for some stupid reason?
 
2013-02-05 09:52:54 AM

lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?


Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?
 
2013-02-05 09:56:10 AM

BullBearMS: lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?

Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?


Um, I think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz.  :/

Anyway, as was pointed out above, terrorists are not fought on a set battlefield.  They are fought where ever they appear, and where ever they are found to be.  The whole notion of battlefields and the rules of engagement that come with it, need to be completely rethought for a 21st century terror-cell based conflict.
 
2013-02-05 09:56:46 AM

BullBearMS: lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?

Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?


Do you always answer questions about the credibility of your information with questions about the question?
 
2013-02-05 09:57:27 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: BullBearMS: lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?

Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?

Um, I think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz.  :/

Anyway, as was pointed out above, terrorists are not fought on a set battlefield.  They are fought where ever they appear, and where ever they are found to be.  The whole notion of battlefields and the rules of engagement that come with it, need to be completely rethought for a 21st century terror-cell based conflict.


Winner.
 
2013-02-05 10:00:56 AM
LOL. We're back to "it doesn't matter if they pose an immanent threat, as long as a politician has accused an American citizen of something, we can just outright murder them."
 
2013-02-05 10:08:43 AM

BullBearMS: LOL. We're back to "it doesn't matter if they pose an immanent threat, as long as a politician has accused an American citizen of something, we can just outright murder them."


oh, I didn't know that all of the intel operatives for the CIA, NSA, and FBI were all just politicians moonlighting as intel experts.
 
2013-02-05 10:08:47 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-05 10:09:12 AM
i1121.photobucket.com
So, you got distracted by the game of "tag" between the Tweedles?


www.mrtakedown.com
And while you weren't looking . . . Oh shiat.


Just let it go, man. It's gone.


2.bp.blogspot.com

"We'll take it from here, citizen."


 
2013-02-05 10:12:09 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: BullBearMS: LOL. We're back to "it doesn't matter if they pose an immanent threat, as long as a politician has accused an American citizen of something, we can just outright murder them."

oh, I didn't know that all of the intel operatives for the CIA, NSA, and FBI were all just politicians moonlighting as intel experts.


Seeing as how no heads except the scapegoat Libby's ever rolled over the Valerie Plame incident, I'm pretty sure that somebody in a dangerous enough situation could be convinced to report just about anything to not have their cover blown.
 
2013-02-05 10:13:31 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Standard Deviant: I love the idiots in here who are holding their own government less accountable to them than another government. What if Iran decided you were an enemy, so they targeted and killed you? This is the same thing - and you are giving the US the right to decide you should die. Our country was designed so that we didn't give that power to anyone.

Absolutely

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This memo specifically violates the 5th amendment by declaring the ability to kill people when they're not "in actual service".


What does "in actual service" mean? Do they have to be holding a gun? Or can they just be enlisted? Because, in the case of Awlaki, he proudly announced his enlistment in the organization against which Congress has declared war.

Again, I'm trying to tease out exactly where the problem is here. I think we all agree that, after Congress properly declared war against the Taliban, All Qaida, and Afghanistan that the president is well within his authority to strike a target in Afghanistan who is an open member of Al Qaida. Do we all agree on that?

If the target in Afghanistan, who is an open and declared leader of Al Qaida, happens to be American, does the president now exceed his authority to conduct war as authorized by congress?
 
2013-02-05 10:14:20 AM

lordjupiter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BullBearMS: lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?

Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?

Um, I think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz.  :/

Anyway, as was pointed out above, terrorists are not fought on a set battlefield.  They are fought where ever they appear, and where ever they are found to be.  The whole notion of battlefields and the rules of engagement that come with it, need to be completely rethought for a 21st century terror-cell based conflict.

Winner.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't see "battlefield", but I do see "In actual service".
 
2013-02-05 10:15:16 AM
The U.S. is just standing its ground. Like that Zimmerman guy. I don't see a problem.
 
2013-02-05 10:15:18 AM

BullBearMS: LOL. We're back to "it doesn't matter if they pose an immanent threat, as long as a politician has accused an American citizen of something, we can just outright murder them."


You becha.

Remember the NDAA friend.
 
2013-02-05 10:20:28 AM
Actually, I don't know why the Powers that Be even bother with any PRETENSE of the Rule of Law anymore...

previous.presstv.ir

Oh, that's right.

Still a few loose ends to tie up.
 
2013-02-05 10:23:30 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 1. Send in troops to take the targeted individual alive (and likely lose a few of our guys along the way, if the mission is even successful)


We have troops who specialize in this. Before the WoT they were doing it South America against drug lords and in Bosnia against PIFWICs and were quite successful.
 
2013-02-05 10:25:01 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: lordjupiter: Grand_Moff_Joseph: BullBearMS: lordjupiter: In your opinion. What's your clearance?

Are you trying to claim we have a battlefield in Yemen or are you trying to claim that Yemen is near American citizens?

Um, I think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz.  :/

Anyway, as was pointed out above, terrorists are not fought on a set battlefield.  They are fought where ever they appear, and where ever they are found to be.  The whole notion of battlefields and the rules of engagement that come with it, need to be completely rethought for a 21st century terror-cell based conflict.

Winner.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't see "battlefield", but I do see "In actual service".


The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)
 
2013-02-05 10:28:43 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)


Fine, the president thinks you're in a terror cell.  You say you aren't, exactly what should keep you alive in the event of a clerical error?
 
2013-02-05 10:37:35 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)

Fine, the president thinks you're in a terror cell.  You say you aren't, exactly what should keep you alive in the event of a clerical error?


By the time the President gives the go order, if the error hasn't been caught by then, then it's far too late for me, anyway.  I just have to hope that the professionals who are calculating the intel do their jobs right.

But, if not, I'm in no better shape than if a bomber misses his target window by 20ft.  Either way, I'm farked.
 
2013-02-05 10:38:18 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)

Fine, the president thinks you're in a terror cell.  You say you aren't, exactly what should keep you alive in the event of a clerical error?


In the US or any other friendly government? Feasibility. It is feasible to ask his surrender, at which point he can avail himself of all the remedies of our judicial system. If he lives in Somalia, well, the president sure will look bad for that mistake.
 
2013-02-05 10:38:21 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)

Fine, the president thinks you're in a terror cell.  You say you aren't, exactly what should keep you alive in the event of a clerical error?


Hope your name isn't Archibald Buttle?
 
2013-02-05 10:40:46 AM
Since standing armies are not established with the Constitution, but militias are, does this quantify that citizens have the right to assasinate govt officials? Stupid, all of it. Of course not.
 
2013-02-05 10:51:50 AM
blog.nj.com

"The Constitution is a Living Document!"

www.thedailysheeple.com

"Kill it."
 
2013-02-05 10:56:14 AM
Remember when Richard Nixon was going to be impeached for wiretapping U.S. citizens? We've sure come a long way. Nowadays he could just call them suspected terrorists and then kill them all.
 
2013-02-05 11:02:04 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The "in actual service" part needs to be redefined as well.  Looking at terror cells, they are "in actual service" 24/7/365 (at least imo)

Fine, the president thinks you're in a terror cell.  You say you aren't, exactly what should keep you alive in the event of a clerical error?

By the time the President gives the go order, if the error hasn't been caught by then, then it's far too late for me, anyway.


That's the whole point, to prevent the possibility of such a supreme fark up.  War is not the same thing as assassination.  Don't pretend that a man sitting on his porch in the middle east is an impending threat like a missile in flight.
 
2013-02-05 11:06:24 AM

1derful: Remember when Richard Nixon was going to be impeached for wiretapping U.S. citizens? We've sure come a long way. Nowadays he could just call them suspected terrorists and then kill them all.


::sigh::

No. He couldn't. 1) Congress has not passed an Authorized Use of Military Force against "terrorists." 2) It is feasible in the United States and within friendly governments to attempt capture and ask for surrender. 3) Use of drone strikes in the US would not be commensurate with the current rules of conducting warfare. Literally everything you said in that statement was wrong.
 
2013-02-05 11:13:20 AM

nmrsnr: No. He couldn't. 1) Congress has not passed an Authorized Use of Military Force against "terrorists."


Laws do not trump amendments.
 
2013-02-05 11:20:34 AM

nmrsnr: 1derful: Remember when Richard Nixon was going to be impeached for wiretapping U.S. citizens? We've sure come a long way. Nowadays he could just call them suspected terrorists and then kill them all.

::sigh::

No. He couldn't. 1) Congress has not passed an Authorized Use of Military Force against "terrorists." 2) It is feasible in the United States and within friendly governments to attempt capture and ask for surrender. 3) Use of drone strikes in the US would not be commensurate with the current rules of conducting warfare. Literally everything you said in that statement was wrong.



It's certainly not feasible to capture when the government perceives an imminent threat. A lethal operation is commensurate with rules of warfare when the host nation consents, and in this case, the host nation consents right before giving the citizens "due posses" whist warming up the drone. But you are right, about one thing, you have to call them Al Quaida before you kill them, not a terrorists..
 
2013-02-05 11:34:37 AM
I'm fairly liberal, but I have no real issue with this particular drone strike.

1. Would I have a problem with us hitting AQ operatives who are propaganda/recruitment leadership? No. Then the place of his birth doesn't really matter. Unless you want to say that all AQ has to do is make sure they have people who were born in the US at their major bases, and we can't hit them anymore.

2. To look at a historical example, instead of civil war, lets go to WWII. There were US citizens of German heritage who went to fight for Germany and were killed by US troops in combat. Not an issue. If one of them wasn't on the field, but was working at a propaganda center in Berlin, would bombing that center be valid, even if you intended to kill said US citizen? I would also not have a problem with this scenario.

Added to the fact that he was sentenced to death in absentia in Yemen, so if they caught him first, they'd kill him also, I still don't really have a problem with it.

I may have a problem with the drone strikes themselves, particularly in them being used where they create collateral damage, but US citizenship isn't a magic shield if you join someone we're at war (or "war") with, especially with the AUMF passed, and the group listed in it.

I'm strongly against torture, and feel due process should apply to anyone in our custody, including trials.
 
2013-02-05 12:00:12 PM
Our Legislative bodies passing laws with out reading them first.
Habeas corpus no longer applicable for citizen's deemed "terrorist"
Elites (Bankers and members of Congress and government) not bound or prosecuted for crimes.
Federal Reserve printing money to the tune of  85Billion a month, which steals the wealth of savers.
The Government routinely lying to its citizens.

We no longer live in a republican democracy.
 
2013-02-05 12:17:12 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah
What I detailed is what al-Awlaki did. He became an enemy combatant actively working against the US, and he ignored the ultimatum to return and stand trial. So yes, Obama did have the clearance to have him become a crater. How would you have handled it? Gathered up some police officers, send them overseas, have them arrest al-Awlaki, and bring him back?

If the law means anything. I mean, if it doesn't mean anything anymore, that's cool; at least admit it.

What if he was killed in the attempt, or all of the policemen were killed?

Thems the breaks.


bk3k
a guy who is working to get US citizens killed

Gee, that sounds like something that could be proved or disproved in a court of law.

Nah, that's too much work. Let's just bomb a village. He was probably guilty.


The exact same arguments we were all using against the Republicans eight years ago are now perfectly applicable to the Democrats. You need to seriously look at yourselves.


Red Barchetta
Can't we just have a government who will stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign lands?
I was against it when Bush did it, I am against Obama doing it.
And what is the deal with you Farkers and blaming people who speak out against this as being for/with the other political party?
I don't have to like Pepsi to not want to drink Coke. I can hate all soft drinks equally and want something healthier.


I give you a rating of "sane human being".


Fluorescent Testicle
I've had BullBear ignored as a balls-to-the-wall, Obama-is-Satan right-wing lunatic for a while.

Critical of Democrats? Must be a Republican!


Serious Black
You want to change it? Elect Congressmen and Senators who think differently. Elect a President who thinks differently. Make sure they nominate federal judges that think differently.

And if it's impossible? These mass murderers get to just keep on going because the political system is broken, yeah?


Keizer_Ghidorah
They still have to work with Republicans.

Really, those big mean ol' Republicans are forcing Obama to sign off on these acts as part of his Executive Branch duties? farkin' how?


BullBearMS
At this point, if you claim to be liberal but aren't voting Green, you're an idiot.

That's even dumber. It'll literally never work. Working for the Greens is throwing all of your time, energy, and money down the shiatter.

You want to make some changes, organize for direct changes at the grassroots. Start a radical union or solidarity society. Start or join a Copwatch group. Make a garden you can get almost all of your food from and expand it to the community. Start a renters' union. Start a cooperative (any kind!). Then reinvest the resources and savings into starting more projects.

Don't piss it all away on politics. That's linear. Build economically to go exponential.
 
2013-02-05 12:58:13 PM
Oh great now Glen Beck doesn't sound so bat shiat crazy after all.
 
2013-02-05 01:04:13 PM
In the U.S., you're more likely to be assassinated by one of your fellow citizens than by the government.
 
2013-02-05 01:19:17 PM

Lorelle: In the U.S., you're more likely to be assassinated by one of your fellow citizens than by the government.


2nd amendment supporter -  You're more likely to be killed by cars than guns
Gun control supporter -  But cars aren't designed to kill, so they don't count

5th amendment supporter - They've now designed a policy to kill U.S. citizens
Assassination supporter -.........Well, you're more likely to be killed by someone else
 
2013-02-05 01:25:51 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 2nd amendment supporter -  You're more likely to be killed by cars than guns
Gun control supporter -  But cars aren't designed to kill, so they don't count

5th amendment supporter - They've now designed a policy to kill U.S. citizens
Assassination supporter -.........Well, you're more likely to be killed by someone else


WTF?!?

Who's supporting assassination?? I merely stated a verifiable fact.
 
2013-02-05 01:36:26 PM

Lorelle: In the U.S., you're more likely to be assassinated by one of your fellow citizens than by the government.


That's very true...

upload.wikimedia.org

and I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
 
2013-02-05 02:04:01 PM

Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Rincewind53: nmrsnr: Is it okay if the American is collateral damage as opposed to being a target? What if the American wasn't the only target?

That's what the central question is: can the government target an American citizen? When the American is unintentional collateral damage, the law is pretty clear that's okay.

Okay, so what about the Al Qaida base in Afghanistan with just the American in it? Okay or not? I don't see how being an American citizen materially changes whether or not the U.S. Government has the right to blow you up or not. Either they have good and just cause to order your death without trial, or they don't, where you were born really doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference.

Well, it's about the Due Process clause of the Constitution, which says "...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So any time the United States government deprives an American citizen of life, they need to follow the due process of the law, and many people believe that that would require a trial, and that targeted killings of American citizens outside of immediate battlefield is simply not allowed under the Constitution. This memo argues otherwise, and pegs the "Due Process" on a three part test, allowing such targeted killings against senior-level Al-Qaeda officials when "(1) an informed, high-level official of the United States government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

Then, later in the memo, the author essentially says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, of course, imminent doesn't mean imminent in the sense that the attack is going to occur in the next day or so, but imminent means simply that the Al-Qaeda official is actively plotting against the United States." Which means that ...


Doesn't this already happen?  Hell, didn't it JUST happen in AL?  Talks were deteriorating and they busted in there and killed that guy.  It was determined he was not capturable and posed an imminent threat.

sure, it's quite a bit different but the basics are there.

If you side with the enemy you will be treated like the enemy.  Perhaps we need an amendment that strips citizenship in certain situations?

/libby lib
 
2013-02-05 02:18:02 PM

bk3k: LOL you accuse me of making a straw man, and then go on to compare a guy who is working to get US citizens killed - a very real man not made of straw - with a man who simply buys a knife and presumably has no plans at all for that knife.  But I'm making a straw man...

Really now?  You actually want me to pretend that is a valid argument?  Not happening.  Please try again.


Except that you are merely assuming that he's working to get US citizens killed. Which was the whole point of my example. So your man is still made of straw.
 
2013-02-05 02:20:21 PM

cman: Mentat: cman: 1. It is not "assassination"
2. No one biatched at Lincoln when the American troops killed the rebelling Confederacy soldiers. 500k Americans died in that war.
3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

Even if you trust this President, what about the next?  Look at how easily Bush and the neocons took down the institutional barriers to government power that had been built up over decades.  It's not hard to envision a future President ordering a drone strike on a target within America in the name of national security.  We have to be very careful at establishing precedent, because once that power is granted it's almost impossible to take it away.

Then what are we to do?

Should we keep them in play plotting or do we capture them with the possibility of even more lives lost than originally planned?

I understand the "give an inch and they take a foot" philosophy. That is what I believe on many things. Thing is is that it is happening in a warzone area. It is war and we are dealing with a very motivated enemy. These people are in active treason against the US. US constitution clearly gives the President power how to deal with this situation.


So, violations of due process in this memo:

1. No review. Nobody's double-checking anything here. If someone at any point makes a mistake, then we could end up shooting an innocent.

2. Let's say someone joins Al Queada and is a chef. Doesn't handle weapons at all. Under this memo, he is classed as the same sort of threat as Osama Bin Laden, which isn't just a violation of due process and appropriate punishment, it's just shiatty organization and someone should get their ass fired for that.

That's two violations of the Bill of farking Rights. What the hell is this plan supposed to be, we destroy the Constitution so they don't have to?
 
2013-02-05 03:11:35 PM
Whatever, this is nothing new.
 
2013-02-05 03:39:09 PM
 
2013-02-05 04:07:27 PM

BullBearMS: 100 Watt Walrus: BullBearMS: 100 Watt Walrus: Neither Gyrfalcon nor I said either of these things were OK, and it is a "problem to send in the marines to arrest a guy" into any country where we don't have a green light from their government.

This particular government is so in our lap, that it agreed to take the blame for the deaths of the innocent women and children our drone strikes had already killed, as US State Department cables revealed.

We had the green light to do whatever we wanted.

This is also a Government that routinely murdered it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful protests during the Arab spring, yet we continued to prop them up with money and weapons.

Claims that we couldn't send in the marines to this nation are complete and utter bullshiat.

Neither of us made that claim either. The larger conversation here, as I understand it, is not about what's already happened. It's about what this incident, and the decisions that lead to it, mean for the future. If there's a next time, the target may not be in Yemen.

Here, let me quote that for you.

Gyrfalcon: 2. They can resort to military means to remove him, tantamount to declaring war on the host nation, in order to remove a person who has not yet committed a crime, against a country that has not committed any act of aggression against America. This is not a good option.


Note above the part I've bolded. That's where the difference lies. If faced with a similar situation in the future where the "host nation" is not Yemen, or some similarly pliable, unstable nation-state, then what?
 
2013-02-05 04:14:42 PM

HotWingAgenda: "The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,"  he said.
But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that  no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike.

Come again?  I'm disturbed by this reporter's abject failure to read the quote he typed directly before his own half-assed comment.


It seems to me that the contents of the paper released and the contents of the explaining speech were somewhat at odds.
 
2013-02-05 04:29:37 PM
This sort of shiat is to killing American citizens who are combatants against American forces on the battlefield as a cop shooting someone robbing a bank is to the DA telling a cop to sneak into someone's house and shoot them because the DA is absopositively sure that the person is friends with the guys who robbed the bank a few weeks ago.
 
2013-02-05 04:33:59 PM
Fark Democrats TM are farked in the head. Can't wait for them to protest these actions when some shiathead Republican is back in control. Get a clue, I'm taking the George Carlin approach and detaching myself from politics. Now I can sit back and laugh at you morons.
 
2013-02-05 05:01:53 PM

GAT_00: Rincewind53: GAT_00: Rincewind53: I think his point was to use sarcasm to point out that the Left in America has been against this from day frickin' one.

Bull farking shiat.  There was about 20 people pissed off, and Chomsky got yelled at by what is supposedly the left.

If you honestly think that the Left in America does not oppose drone strikes and hasn't been pretty vocal about it, then you haven't been following the Left.

Or perhaps you mean liberals. Because liberals are fairly centrist and generally don't oppose drone strikes. But if you mean liberals, and not the Left, then why didn't you just say so?

Your definitions are reversed from mine.  The Left is the Democratic party.  Liberals are people like Chomsky, Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.

There is nothing "liberal" about the Democratic Party except neoliberalism, yet another misnomer of a name in the American political lexicon.


"The Left" used as a big L institutional left could mean the Democratic Party but liberals would be on the left and be social democrats. Of course in mainstream USA "liberal" just means Democratic/conservative/neoliberal/right-but-not-far-right.
Then you would get into the Green Party, SPUSA, CPUSA and horizontally non-electoral/party based grassroots groups, many of which would say they're decidedly not liberal but some of which would say they are "true" liberals but the identification with "liberal" would probably end once you start going into the lefter ends of the Green Party and the rightward ends of socialist groups as opposed to reformist territory.
Here's a little ditty about it, the original was by Phil Ochs:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDT7wKvdRk
 
2013-02-05 05:06:48 PM
TheJoe03
Fark Democrats TM are farked in the head.

Neoconservatives are mostly transplanted liberals with a fiscally conservative side and a penchant for Machiavellianism. It isn't just here on Fark... most Democrats these days are really just conservatives that aren't particularly racist or homophobic.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:48 PM

mrexcess: It isn't just here on Fark... most Democrats these days are really just conservatives that aren't particularly racist or homophobic.


Damn, that actually makes a lot of sense. I'm still looking for where the anti war and civil libertarian left went.
 
2013-02-05 05:27:22 PM
TheJoe03
I'm still looking for where the anti war and civil libertarian left went.

Out of politics. The people like that who were in office, ala Russ Feingold, got sold out by their party as soon as the party regained power in a sort of house-cleaning. The grassroots was either propagandized along (hey look mrs. civil libertarian, we're running a black president who is pro gay rights! vote for us, we're just like you!), disillusioned into non-involvement by continual betrayals, or tear gassed at Occupy protests.
 
2013-02-05 05:34:21 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


1) The FBI played its part in entrapment
2) As for the defendant's free will, they left Occupy because it wasn't radical enough for their liking
3) Your source talks in defense of a known liar and scam artist Andrew Breitbart, a group that has domestic terrorist connections/incidents and has called for armed revolution against the US government (the Tea Party) and cites more right wing theocrats, hypocrites, and liars.
 
2013-02-05 05:43:58 PM
Told you.
 
2013-02-05 06:14:07 PM
TheJoe03
I'm taking the George Carlin approach and detaching myself from politics. Now I can sit back and laugh at you morons.

Great, but now the correct answer is to start organizing. Otherwise you're still letting the assholes win.
 
2013-02-05 06:37:33 PM

Tat'dGreaser: I don't know what's scarier, this memo or the people in this thread who have blind and utter devotion to a political party.


Know what's even scarier? People who honestly believe that killing former American citizens who actively work with our enemies is going to jump straight to Obama launching nuclear missiles at Las Vegas, Tampa, and Wala Wala because one person said something slightly mean about the government. Do you honestly hate and fear him so much that you have to dream up bullshiat doomsday scenarios in order to feel justified about it?
 
2013-02-05 06:38:04 PM

mrexcess: Out of politics. The people like that who were in office, ala Russ Feingold, got sold out by their party as soon as the party regained power in a sort of house-cleaning. The grassroots was either propagandized along (hey look mrs. civil libertarian, we're running a black president who is pro gay rights! vote for us, we're just like you!), disillusioned into non-involvement by continual betrayals, or tear gassed at Occupy protests.


Sad but true.

RanDomino: Great, but now the correct answer is to start organizing. Otherwise you're still letting the assholes win.


My optimism about starting some kind of movement is sapped for now. That said, hopefully there's some people out there that do have that optimism. Occupy was a good start and internet activism is getting better, so maybe my cynicism is too strong.
 
2013-02-05 06:40:57 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Know what's even scarier? People who honestly believe that killing former American citizens who actively work with our enemies is going to jump straight to Obama launching nuclear missiles at Las Vegas, Tampa, and Wala Wala because one person said something slightly mean about the government. Do you honestly hate and fear him so much that you have to dream up bullshiat doomsday scenarios in order to feel justified about it?


The problem with this who situation is how vague it is and the precedent it sets, just like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. I don't give a flying fark who the president is because I have no idea what douche will be president in 2016 and beyond. I'm not worried about nukes being turned on the US, I'm worried about the continued erosion of our rights in the name of counter-terrorism.
 
2013-02-05 06:51:12 PM
TheJoe03
My optimism about starting some kind of movement is sapped for now.

Base it in practical economics instead of a 'movement' that would only bring a different slate of asshole politicians into power. I gave some examples upthread.
 
2013-02-05 06:54:13 PM

RanDomino: Base it in practical economics instead of a 'movement' that would only bring a different slate of asshole politicians into power. I gave some examples upthread.


Just looked up your post and damn those are the exact types of things I can get behind since they are actually practical and work.
 
2013-02-05 07:11:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: I don't know what's scarier, this memo or the people in this thread who have blind and utter devotion to a political party.

Know what's even scarier? People who honestly believe that killing former American citizens who actively work with our enemies is going to jump straight to Obama launching nuclear missiles at Las Vegas, Tampa, and Wala Wala because one person said something slightly mean about the government. Do you honestly hate and fear him so much that you have to dream up bullshiat doomsday scenarios in order to feel justified about it?


Why are you projecting at me?
 
2013-02-05 07:54:58 PM

BullBearMS: cman: 3. If you are in active treason against the United States and planning attacks on them, you make yourself into a military target.

According to the Constitution, there is this little formality called a trial, before you can be found guilty of treason.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[dl.dropbox.com image 624x265]

You can't just claim someone is guilty of treason and kill them.


You have to understand how the new "living Constitution" works.  Since the Constitution specifically states the rules for convicting someone of treason, our government decided to skip that entire process and just declare them guilty of treason and kill them.  They didn't violate the Constitution because they didn't bypass the Constitution to get a conviction.  The same logic is used to invoke interstate commerce to control pot sales that doesn't involve interstate commerce.

I wish I was joking.  I haz a sad.
 
2013-02-05 08:02:17 PM

Serious Black: BullBearMS: Tickle Mittens: There are plenty of occasions where it's legal to kill people, and a few where they haven't even done anything to deserve it.

If you're spotted on an American battlefield, attacking our troops, nobody would give a damn if you were killed.

However, we're talking about killing citizens who are far from any battlefield.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, our government is not allowed to kill it's citizens on a politician's whim.

The Constitution is pretty damn clear about this.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

We can say certain things are natural rights guaranteed to all humans and chisel them into a piece of stone that will last for all eternity, but in the end, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who enforce it. If Congress gives the President the power to do X and the Supreme Court says X is kosher, it doesn't matter if it's really constitutional or not according to an objective standard.


Over twenty years ago I was critizing the government's habit of stretching the intent of the Constitution to do things (especially interstate commerce and common welfare).  People argued back that what the government was doing was a good thing, so I shouldn't complain.  I tried to explain that allowing the government to ignore the Constitution because they agreed with the intent set a bad precedent.  It breeds contempt for the Constitution and eventually the government will be doing things you find obscene, but by then it will be too late to stop them.

I was right.
 
2013-02-05 08:11:38 PM
 
2013-02-05 08:33:14 PM

BullBearMS: How not the least bit shocking at all. Obama is once again following in Bush's footsteps.


Don't you just love how the Dems wanted Bush in jail, and now that Obama is doing the same things or worse, they think it's not a big deal?  The last 8 years are perfect examples of why political parties should be outlawed.
 
2013-02-05 09:04:41 PM

doglover: If you don't want to get blown up, don't engage in terrorist activities.

If you don't blow yourself up Uncle Sam will do it for you.


Wow, your dumb posts don't stop.  When a cop is doing a full cavity search on your butthole, take heart, you've nothing to hide.
 
2013-02-05 09:55:58 PM

OgreMagi: Over twenty years ago I was critizing the government's habit of stretching the intent of the Constitution to do things (especially interstate commerce and common welfare). People argued back that what the government was doing was a good thing, so I shouldn't complain. I tried to explain that allowing the government to ignore the Constitution because they agreed with the intent set a bad precedent. It breeds contempt for the Constitution and eventually the government will be doing things you find obscene, but by then it will be too late to stop them.


Kind of like when Congress passed a Bill of Attainder against ACORN.
 
2013-02-06 12:08:33 AM
TheJoe03
Just looked up your post and damn those are the exact types of things I can get behind since they are actually practical and work.

Nine years of Farking, suddenly worth it
 
2013-02-06 12:54:09 AM
 
2013-02-06 12:57:56 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: I don't know what's scarier, this memo or the people in this thread who have blind and utter devotion to a political party.

Know what's even scarier? People who honestly believe that killing former American citizens who actively work with our enemies is going to jump straight to Obama launching nuclear missiles at Las Vegas, Tampa, and Wala Wala because one person said something slightly mean about the government. Do you honestly hate and fear him so much that you have to dream up bullshiat doomsday scenarios in order to feel justified about it?


That about sums it up.
 
2013-02-06 01:28:06 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: I don't know what's scarier, this memo or the people in this thread who have blind and utter devotion to a political party.

Know what's even scarier? People who honestly believe that killing former American citizens who actively work with our enemies is going to jump straight to Obama launching nuclear missiles at Las Vegas, Tampa, and Wala Wala because one person said something slightly mean about the government. Do you honestly hate and fear him so much that you have to dream up bullshiat doomsday scenarios in order to feel justified about it?


What's even scarier is people who believe that killing these people in some way makes us all safer.
 
2013-02-06 07:03:38 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: That about sums it up.


I still don't understand how putting words in my mouth create a valid argument. Me saying this is a horrible thing and people shouldn't be slaves to their political party all of a sudden turned into me saying the Apocalypse is coming and Obama is the anti-Christ.
 
2013-02-06 08:46:07 AM

OgreMagi: Over twenty years ago I was critizing the government's habit of stretching the intent of the Constitution to do things (especially interstate commerce and common welfare). People argued back that what the government was doing was a good thing, so I shouldn't complain. I tried to explain that allowing the government to ignore the Constitution because they agreed with the intent set a bad precedent. It breeds contempt for the Constitution and eventually the government will be doing things you find obscene, but by then it will be too late to stop them.

I was right.


That's around the same time I came to the same conclusion you did.  So long as people continue to wave flags for their party, the Constitution will be crapped on.
 
2013-02-06 05:14:45 PM
HURR Obama is EXPANDING the Bush policies DURR Obama is the same as Bush HURR RON PAUL.
 
2013-02-06 08:35:22 PM
Wahhhhhhh I rebelled against the United States and spend my time killing innocent people now people are trying to kill me waaaahhhhhhh
 
2013-02-06 08:39:03 PM

Novart: Wahhhhhhh I rebelled against the United States and spend my time killing innocent people now people are trying to kill me waaaahhhhhhh


Notice the targets are the ones not b*tching about it on the internet.
 
2013-02-06 09:43:30 PM

whidbey: HURR Obama is EXPANDING the Bush policies DURR Obama is the same as Bush HURR RON PAUL.


HURR I only care about civil liberties and America's imperial foreign policy when Republicans are in office DURR.
 
2013-02-07 05:17:34 AM

TheJoe03: America's imperial foreign policy


What exactly is imperial about America's foreign policy, genius?
 
2013-02-07 05:33:51 AM

thamike: What exactly is imperial about America's foreign policy, genius?


737 military bases around the world, we act as the world police, we base our foreign policy off exploiting other nations resources or fighting ideologies. America has acted as if it was against empires from day one but the expansion of America from the 13 colonies to what it is now was imperialism. The territories we own are imperialism. The fact we attacked Iraq just to get rid of their leader and insert our influence in that region is imperialism. Our presence in the Middle East is imperialism. I'm not that smart of a guy, there are whole books devoted to American imperialism (both past and present) so I suggest you find out yourself instead of counting on me to inform you about that viewpoint (which I believe in, being a superpower tends to lead to imperialism).
 
2013-02-07 06:01:07 AM

TheJoe03: thamike: What exactly is imperial about America's foreign policy, genius?

737 military bases around the world, we act as the world police, we base our foreign policy off exploiting other nations resources or fighting ideologies. America has acted as if it was against empires from day one but the expansion of America from the 13 colonies to what it is now was imperialism. The territories we own are imperialism. The fact we attacked Iraq just to get rid of their leader and insert our influence in that region is imperialism. Our presence in the Middle East is imperialism. I'm not that smart of a guy, there are whole books devoted to American imperialism (both past and present) so I suggest you find out yourself instead of counting on me to inform you about that viewpoint (which I believe in, being a superpower tends to lead to imperialism).


None of that is imperialism.  Not even through your lens.  You might not be a smart guy, but I'm sure you can find a word--even one loaded with scorn--that is more fitting to describe U.S. foreign policy.  People have written books about a lot of things.  I'm sure there's one about the onus being on the maker of declarative statements to support those statements.  I'm sure there's one that is a collection of words with their corresponding definitions which you can absorb and use to describe the ideas you have. There's probably a book on how to do that without acting like a twat, as well.
 
2013-02-07 07:52:31 AM
dl.dropbox.com

It's OK when they declare themselves to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner -- able to murder American citizens on a whim -- without the Courts or Congress having any oversight into the matter whatsoever!
 
2013-02-07 10:48:20 AM
thamike
None of that is imperialism. Not even through your lens. You might not be a smart guy, but I'm sure you can find a word--even one loaded with scorn--that is more fitting to describe U.S. foreign policy.

Don't worry, kids, if you lose an argument you can always fall back to semantics.
 
2013-02-07 02:11:53 PM

TheJoe03: whidbey: HURR Obama is EXPANDING the Bush policies DURR Obama is the same as Bush HURR RON PAUL.

HURR I only care about civil liberties and America's imperial foreign policy when Republicans are in office DURR.


More like HURR  I'm going to keep pretending that Bush's f*ckups and Obama's attempts to clean up the mess he left us are indicative of the same mindset.
 
2013-02-07 03:00:57 PM

thamike: None of that is imperialism.


Whatever you say buddy, good job adding a personal attack at the end.

Perhaps you don't know the definition of imperialism. Here ya go,
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

Why you would deny America does those things is strange, I wonder why you would refuse to admit it.

/"You try and vote and participate in the government, but the motherfarkin Democrats are acting like Republicans"
//Seriously, people on the left denying American imperialism? Now I've seen everything.
///You even denied Manifest Destiny and our taking of territorial possessions as imperialism, wow.
 
2013-02-07 04:03:21 PM

TheJoe03: thamike: None of that is imperialism.

Whatever you say buddy, good job adding a personal attack at the end.

Perhaps you don't know the definition of imperialism. Here ya go,
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

Why you would deny America does those things is strange, I wonder why you would refuse to admit it.

/"You try and vote and participate in the government, but the motherfarkin Democrats are acting like Republicans"
//Seriously, people on the left denying American imperialism? Now I've seen everything.
///You even denied Manifest Destiny and our taking of territorial possessions as imperialism, wow.



That is a much bigger issue than Obama being President.   The fact is, the far-right wing of this country controls our military policy, and Obama is just driving the car.

Comparing his actions to the offensives the Bush administration carried out is not a fair comparison.

This is the best we're going to get, and so far it's been very good.  You can either hide your head in the sand and allow the Republicans to take the country back in 2016, or you might realize that what I'm saying is indeed true, and you'll throw your support to the best option we've got.
 
2013-02-07 04:37:16 PM

whidbey: You can either hide your head in the sand and allow the Republicans to take the country back in 2016, or you might realize that what I'm saying is indeed true, and you'll throw your support to the best option we've got.


The problem is that I have voted for Obama the last two elections for that reason and we are still farking up. Of course he has done a better job than Bush, but Dubya set the bar so incredibly low. I also refuse to excuse actions done by the current administration just because they aren't as evil and disgusting as the Bush administration. I prefer to keep holding our politicians to the fire, even if I agree with them on most issues and find them to be better than the other option. One of my biggest problems with what Obama has done is that he kept a lot of the precedents Bush set and I truly fear what will happen when America's attention span runs out and we elect another war mongering Republican. Another major issue I have is that since we elected a Democrat, all the anti-war fervor on the left dissipated. We can't just care when the GOP is in office, we should care now so that when the GOP is back in power they have less options to screw us over.
 
2013-02-07 04:44:04 PM
whidbey
Comparing his actions to the offensives the Bush administration carried out is not a fair comparison.

Here's what you don't get: Nobody is comparing Obama to Bush. We're comparing him to basic standards of humanity. There's plenty of room for them to both be failures.

What you don't want to confront is the fact that this implies that the system is broken, and you don't want to deal with it. So you make up all this bullshiat to tell yourself you're right and you don't have to change anything. That's what it boils down to.

Get your head out of your ass.
 
2013-02-07 06:13:00 PM

TheJoe03: whidbey: You can either hide your head in the sand and allow the Republicans to take the country back in 2016, or you might realize that what I'm saying is indeed true, and you'll throw your support to the best option we've got.

The problem is that I have voted for Obama the last two elections for that reason and we are still farking up


"Farking up" how, exactly?

 I also refuse to excuse actions done by the current administration just because they aren't as evil and disgusting as the Bush administration. I prefer to keep holding our politicians to the fire, even if I agree with them on most issues and find them to be better than the other option

We are in agreement that there are still problems with our country's "need" to use its military might to solve problems, real or imagined.

. One of my biggest problems with what Obama has done is that he kept a lot of the precedents Bush set and I truly fear what will happen when America's attention span runs out and we elect another war mongering Republican.

Which is why we should stop electing Republicans.

But I'm not really seeing how this current administration, with all the pressure from the political right, who pretty control the military, would have done anything different.

Another major issue I have is that since we elected a Democrat, all the anti-war fervor on the left dissipated. We can't just care when the GOP is in office, we should care now so that when the GOP is back in power they have less options to screw us over.

In this case,  Bush made sure that we really do have enemies we didn't have before, not to the degree we have now. Pakistan, thanks to the unjustified actions of the Bush administration, is a real problem now.

 Another major issue I have is that since we elected a Democrat, all the anti-war fervor on the left dissipated. We can't just care when the GOP is in office, we should care now so that when the GOP is back in power they have less options to screw us over.

Can't speak for others on the left.  I just understand why we're in the position we're in, and I will not support the kind of unjustified actions like Republicans (and the far right) want to keep continuing.

The fact is Bush lied, and we're still paying the price. Yes, at the expense of our own liberties.
 
2013-02-07 06:18:20 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
Comparing his actions to the offensives the Bush administration carried out is not a fair comparison.

Here's what you don't get: Nobody is comparing Obama to Bush. We're comparing him to basic standards of humanity. There's plenty of room for them to both be failures.


Yeah they are. Don't fool yourself. So far the "argument" is "Obama is EXPANDING Bush's policies. " Which is bullshiat.

What you don't want to confront is the fact that this implies that the system is broken, and you don't want to deal with it. So you make up all this bullshiat to tell yourself you're right and you don't have to change anything. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah we do have to change things. A good way to start would be to discourage right-wing warmongers from getting into office in the first place. And yeah I'm talking about Republicans and Blue Dog type Democrats.  We do not have a 3rd party, quit pretending that is an option.

The ONLY way to change this system is from the inside.  You want anarchy, you want chaos.   Most reasonable people DO NOT want this.
 
2013-02-07 06:28:28 PM

TheJoe03: Whatever you say buddy, good job adding a personal attack at the end.


I was just playing off of what you said--"I'm not that smart of a guy."

And, no.  America is not an empire.

RanDomino: Don't worry, kids, if you lose an argument you can always fall back to semantics.


Calling America Imperialist is obtuse.  It isn't semantics when someone says, "no America isn't an empire.  There are no empires, most likely because of America's influence which, while grand, is not imperialistic."  Words mean things, and imperialism means a hell of a lot more than "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. "

Here's one that's a little closer, but still quite broad (from Merriam-Webster:
2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly

In fact, every definition, however broad, describes imperialism mainly as power through acquisition of territory, often through use of force.

The wikipedia entry starts:  Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

I'm not sure from where theJoe cherrypicked his definition of "imperialism" and I'm not sure how much he sanitized it, but it's bullsh*t.  Calling America an empire, a literally imperialistic entity, is hackneyed left wing bullsh*t and it takes away from a very good point:  America's military-industrial complex is bloated to an obscene level.  Ever since General Westmoreland-- the troglodyte who bragged about being willfully illiterate--refurbished the military into a machine for making wars of attrition, America has been on the extreme end of far too many unnecessary battles.  Unfortunately, it will take a very long time for a reversal of this policy to even happen, let alone have positive results.

That being said, the drone panic is a canard.  And suddenly a lot of people from the anti-Obama camp are suddenly all so concerned.  You guys don't even realize why people voted for him.  I wanted drone strikes and SEAL teams.  This is how it should have been done from the beginning, but because Bush wanted to privatize warfare to an obscene degree, we are left to clean it up.  The minute they started making special forces maintain a clean shave and a snappy uniform, I knew this would be a quagmire.  Two quagmires.

So no, I am not a hypocrite for supporting drone strikes--even ones that target terrorists with American passports--since I have not changed my views in any way. I'm not one way on everything, and I don't view the world through a pinhole. contemporary Republicans don't understand this mentality, because they are absolutist opportunists who only think about one-upping the next guy.
 
2013-02-07 06:43:33 PM
dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-02-07 06:45:07 PM

thamike: Ever since General Westmoreland-- the troglodyte who bragged about being willfully illiterate--refurbished the military into a machine for making wars of attrition, America has been on the extreme end of far too many unnecessary battles. Unfortunately, it will take a very long time for a reversal of this policy to even happen, let alone have positive results.

 
2013-02-07 06:48:11 PM

whidbey: I've more than explained my position


No.  No you haven't.

Obama is fighting for the power to toss people into military prisons without a trial until the end of the war on terror after a federal judge found this to be Unconstitutional.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Why is something that goes far beyond Dick Cheney's wet dreams suddenly OK?
 
2013-02-07 07:53:49 PM

thamike: I was just playing off of what you said--"I'm not that smart of a guy."

And, no.  America is not an empire.


I said that because there are a lot people much smarter than I am that have written extensively on American imperialism. Obviously you don't agree that America is a modern day empire, but perhaps you should look into it.
 
2013-02-07 07:55:57 PM

thamike: I'm not sure from where theJoe cherrypicked his definition of "imperialism" and I'm not sure how much he sanitized it,


Google, define: Imperialism.

thamike: gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas


How does America NOT do this?
 
2013-02-07 08:21:16 PM
whidbey
So far the "argument" is "Obama is EXPANDING Bush's policies. "

No, it isn't. Do you really think that would be the only reason we think it's terrible? Are you really that deluded?

We do not have a 3rd party, quit pretending that is an option.

In this very thread, I have argued against that strategy. I know you know me better than that.


thamike
Calling America Imperialist is obtuse. It isn't semantics when someone says, "no America isn't an empire. There are no empires, most (followed by six more motherfarking paragraphs)

is that... hexupling down? What comes after pentupling?
 
2013-02-08 05:12:01 AM

RanDomino: Calling America Imperialist is obtuse. It isn't semantics when someone says, "no America isn't an empire. There are no empires, most (followed by six more motherfarking paragraphs)

is that... hexupling down? What comes after pentupling?


Sorry, I forgot to check who I was responding to.
 
2013-02-08 05:17:36 AM

TheJoe03: thamike: I was just playing off of what you said--"I'm not that smart of a guy."

And, no.  America is not an empire.

I said that because there are a lot people much smarter than I am that have written extensively on American imperialism. Obviously you don't agree that America is a modern day empire, but perhaps you should look into it.


So I should "study it out" then.
 
2013-02-08 06:36:33 AM

thamike: So I should "study it out" then.


If you want, it's always good to be informed. Myself, I tend to not put too much trust in random schmucks on the internet. It's not like anything you told me had any effect on my views but if you pointed me towards something from someone with credibility I might learn more from you point of view. That's just me though. Like I said, I'm not some genius, I'm just a guy with a viewpoint. I hardly see what you said as "fact" and you didn't really prove anything.
 
Displayed 478 of 478 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report