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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report