EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans
Source: NBC News
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
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.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
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. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Read more: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)They're already being used to patrol the US / Canadian border and are being requested for the Mexican border as well (regarding the "drug war", so expect deaths shortly).
US sheriffs are lining up to get drones so again, it's just a matter of time before a fatality (and more).
City of Seattle PD establishing policies regarding use of drones
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525403
Mind you, the city of Seattle happily doused crowds of Occupiers with pepper spray, including 84-year-old Dorli Rainey, from whom comes my autosignature quote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/dorli-rainey-keith-olbermann-pepper-spray_n_1099198.html
and
Drones cleared for domestic use across the US
Published: 29 November, 2011, 21:47
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-border-patrol-489/
And this is what is unclassified.
Waitwhat
(11 posts)This white paper allows it. Why do you think it will not happen? Because there is a "D" after the current CIC? Yeh, sure. I guess all Obama needs to say is "trust me. I'm a politician with a " D" after my name.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pkdu
(3,977 posts)No , munitions weren't fired , but drones were used
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Only a lunatic would think so.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
<more>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or, more generally, any uppity Muslim, his family, his friends and his neighbors living too close. With the possible addition of completely unrelated individuals whose home may be mistaken for that of said uppity Muslim.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)not in any way an armed terrorist actively trying to kill american civilians from a remote location. the guy joined a military organization that had in word and deed declared and war on the US, specifically targeting civilian air travelers.
that drone that put a missile up his ass should get a promotion.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)He was "suspected" of being and doing what you suggest. Was he ever charged with a crime? Was a warrant for his arrest ever issued? Was he ever brought to trial? Was he given the chance to mount a defense? What part of our Constitution gives the President authority to skip those steps in regard to taking the life of an American citizen? Would you agree to be treated in the same thoroughly unconstitutional manner by some future President?
Hmmmm?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)he was a fighting member of a belligerent enemy military. neither side of the conflict in which he chose to engage has been shy about stating its intentions to kill the other. he chose to go to war against his own country and died doing so. had he chosen to surrender he should have been given a trial for treason. but he made a different choice.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Which foreign country's military did he join? More like a criminal gang, maybe. And, more importantly, what actual hostile action has it been proven he took against the United States? He was suspected of a number of things, perhaps, but that is not justification for taking the life of an American citizen, not even close.
My advice is don't believe everything you're told, especially when it comes from the Pentagon in full CYA mode.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)do you believe only nation states conduct military operations?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)"Al Qaeda" is a not a State with a military. It is an armed criminal organization, a gang. It should have been treated like one from the beginning. See below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)how would that work as a practical matter?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Those individuals had taken up arms against the United States and were actively fighting us on the battlefield, that is very different from an inoffensive sixteen-year-old American citizen who just happens to be the son of someone we strongly dislike.
A police officer is allowed, even expected to return fire, but he cannot sneak up on someone and shoot him dead without warrant or warning.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but I wold put Al-Awlaki in the category of actively taking up arms against us on a battlefield. He was not on a front line battlefield like those at Tora Bora, but neither were Japanese or German operational HQ removed from the WWII front lines. I believe Al Awlaki and others are analogous to that. To be clear, I haven't reached a conclusions about the specifics of the president's executive order - mainly because I don't know them, and therefore have to lean toward those who demand more transparency and checks and balances, but still leaning supportive of operations like that against Mr. Awlaki.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Fair enough, we have yet to see the full White Paper.
I would prefer, however, that the President end this practice of remote, targeted killings at once. I strongly feel it will otherwise be a terrible stain on his legacy, at the very least. He has made a mistake in allowing himself to be convinced by men like Brennan that it is a legal and just tactic. It is neither.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)I'm kind of making fun of those who think the government can never get out of hand.
Nothing is impossible.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)based in foreign lands, I am kind of in favor of the government getting "out of hand".
Don't tell me you think Obama did a bad thing by killing Osama bin Ladin?
I guess you do. You hate everything about him.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I think he died before, or during, the Bush administration. I've never believed he was responsible for 911, that's for sure.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)But I don't think OBL has been alive for a while. A long while. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think that Mossad and the CIA staged 911 under George W. Bush's watch and that Georgie boy knew about it, let it happen on purpose (if he did not participate, in fact), because he wanted his war on Iraq.
On edit: Before anyone goes all militant on me, I don't CARE if Obama killed Osama or not. (And if you believe everything your government tells you, then you are an idiot.) It doesn't matter to me who killed OBL. I am glad that Obama got credit for it, because he's a better president than any Republican could ever be. BUT, if OBL WAS alive when we were supposed to have killed him, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial. I think that everyone deserves their day in court, whether they are Americans, or not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)A lot of people think tha same thing. Whether you agree or not.
I'm not an Obama basher, but I'm not an idiot, either.
Zedadiah
(3 posts)Simple fact, if 9-11 was an inside job, the current administration is now complicit in the cover up.
Ever heard of Occams Razor?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)But, let's look at the history: Obama didn't prosecute Bush and his cronies for torture. Same thing with the bankers. And, NOW, he's giving rationalizations for using drones to kill American citizens.
Ever heard of the saying, "If it quacks like a duck........."?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)action by the federal (and state) governments even while such Americans are outside the country.
The Fifth Amendment requires due process, in criminal cases trial by jury, and the Fourth Amendment precludes unreasonable seizures, including that of the person.
The White Paper argues that one high level federal governmental official can make the determination that a U.S. citizen living abroad outside combat areas is affiliated with AQ and is an imminent threat and may be killed. One official. Just one. There would be no impartial judge or a jury of one's peers. Just an official. No appeals. Just death.
What if that one official were Dick Cheney? Would he be allowed to go after his enemies? I seem to recall that you are old enough (like me) to remember something about Richard Nixon. How about him? Could he be that one official? He had a huge enemies list.
I don't like AQ any more than you do, and I have only one degree of separation between two victims of WTC and all of those who died at the Pentagon.
However, I think that it is unwise and completely contrary to our principles of due process that one official make a life or death judgment of a U.S. citizen.
It is an incredibly slippery slope that we have been going down since 9/11. The Patriot Act, the renditions, the spying. It's not what I always thought that we are.
Even if it means that we have to live with being only 99.8% safe.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I wonder where the line is drawn. Can this be extended to an American on American soil? Why not?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Who needs those silly court systems. Surely the founding fathers didn't intend any "checks and balances".
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)...30 Americans killed in terrorist incidents inside the United States in the last 10 years.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
That should be enough to circumvent our entire legal process, or at least enough to make up some bullshit writ outlining the conditions under which we should lose our liberty and lives.
Sarcasm here should be noted.
Zedadiah
(3 posts)That’s pretty much exactly the point being made by NRA members in defense of the second amendment. Do we have an obligation to be consistent?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)"If they are believed to be," by whom? The great and all-knowing Oz maybe?
I thought that was what we have courts, trials and rules of evidence for?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)dgibby
(9,474 posts)are heading for their bunkers right now.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)How the RWnuts bemoan their "loss of freedom", but never pay attention to ACTUAL losses of freedom such as this.
Do they not understand that govt. drone strikes trump AR-15 weapons every time it's tried?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Could you point out where the Constitution specifies any rights for Americans when they are outside US jurisdiction?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)There is no excusing this. Period.
This could be used against Greenpeace depending on who is deciding what the definition of terrorist is and that is
just off the top of my head. Whenever you open a door like this it gets wedged wider and wider. This is my opinion.
Peace, Mojo
dgibby
(9,474 posts)or any number of peacful, nonviolent protesters.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)therefore, the Constitution applies.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because, again, the Constitution doesn't apply outside US jurisdiction. The only thing protecting Greenpeace activists in the open ocean is we signed some treaties regarding "the law of the sea".
Absent those protections, there would be nothing preventing any President from torpedoing their ships at his whim.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Are you going to ask the warlords there to give due process instead of just shooting him in the head? Do you expect them to say "yes"? What do you propose we do if they say "no" in order to maintain our guarantee?
And what, exactly, is so magical about citizenship? Since we give due process to EVERYONE under US jurisdiction, including "illegal aliens", why should due process protections only extend to US citizens outside US jurisdiction?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Our country has always done these kinds of things. I am not under any illusion that we are perfect by any means. When it becomes policy and is openly done we violate those things we have always stood for.I felt the same about torture and the attempt to legitimize it. It is appalling. It opens the door for more abuse. We were able to go into a country and kill Bin Laden after all. It isn't like we could not attempt capture if it was absolutely necessary. It's not like we have not done this before. Remember John Phillip Walker Lindh? All US citizens should be guaranteed due process.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What makes citizens special such that they should have extra protection?
Aren't drone strikes just as horrific if only foreigners die?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Peace, Mojo
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Neither I nor the poster I was responding to said "enemy combatant."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to msanthrope (Reply #125)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bombs to Chicago synagogues?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)from within the U.S.
You mean someone who has been ACCUSED of sending PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)French law does not protect against self-incrimination.
So clearly, we need to send in a SEAL team if any American is arrested in France, right? After all, the US government has to ensure that 5th amendment right is protected.
Oh wait, that would be insane.
The Constitution only applies within US jurisdiction. That's one of the big reasons why we insist that our troops abroad remain under US jurisdiction - so that their rights remain protected.
Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)
Bo Didley Message auto-removed
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)
It applies to every instrument of the United State government, wherever they are, whatever they are doing. Except for those protections specifically guaranteed only to citizens, or "the people," or other specific groups, they are all applicable in other countries, to foreign nationals, in international waters, or in wartime. If any agency acts outside of the Constitution anywhere, they are not acting as a legitimate authority of the government.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example, US troops are under US jurisdiction wherever they are deployed.
Utterly false. Non-citizens have Constitutional rights when under US jurisdiction. Even "illegal aliens" have Constitutional rights, as long as they're under US jurisdiction.
Other countries do not have first or fourth amendment protections. Is the US obligated to invade those countries if a US Citizen is arrested for making what would be a first-amendment-protected statement? If not, How exactly do you propose that the US government ensure these rights for US citizens anywhere in the world?
Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #9)
Bo Didley Message auto-removed
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)At Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
It astounds us RW Nuts too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=390917
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Poster admits to being a right-winger.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm kinda conflicted -- the site ain't for right-wingers, but the post is utterly civil. When in doubt, leave it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Joined up just to spout off.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)There are already threads of complaints there for this LOL...
Don't let it happen again! 
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Unfortunately, the propaganda for the one percent has so entrenched us in our little red and blue camps of hatred that we circle the wagons even around the indefensible.
And that is exactly how the one percent keep us divided and keep getting their way.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Where none should exist.
We live in gangster times.
Thank you for the heads-up, Hissyspit.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...the moment it justifies the killing of the people who created it.
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)Not a big deal, IMO.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)I worry about it when my neighbors, colleagues, professional associates, family members, or anyone else other than just plain me can be executed without hearing or trial, just "it is believed."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And the rule of law.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a fallacy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I wasn't talking about the memo. I was talking about this statement: "And 99.99% of us have nothing to worry about," a bullshit fallacious authoritarian-apologist attitude that would make Dick Cheney proud.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Never charged. Never tried. Never convicted. There's no legal basis to consider them guilty of anything, and our ham-fisted "bomb anything brown and Muslim" mentality has assured us that there never will be. We're simply supposed to take the governments word that they' were bad guys.
We have a judicial sytem for a reason. It's unacceptable for ANY administration to avoid using it when dealing with American civilians.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)they were subject to the AUMF of 9/18/2001.
Were they not members of Al Qaeda?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I don't really care what the AUMF says. Congress does not have the authority to order the extrajudicial executions of American citizens merely based on their membership in a prohibited group. Congress must work within the bounds of the Constitution, and the 5th Amendment makes it clear that American citizens get trials.
To argue otherwise is nothing short of frightening. Do you really believe that Congress has the authority to arbitrarily authorize the mass execution of ANY group of Americans that it considers to be enemies of the state? Do you really believe that the military should be able to kill any American who joins a group that the government considers "enemies", no matter what their role or alleged crimes? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for.
Extrajudicial executions of American citizens are NOT OK simply because Congress signs off on it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)If you really can't see a difference between the situations, then this discussion is pointless.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)involved in plots that have resulted in the murder of American citizens, hiding out from justice.
Tell me the difference.
I have a feeling that you're being deliberately obtuse, but just in case:
On one hand you're talking about a foreign national who is the head of a global militant organization, and who publicly admitted his role in the attacks. There was no question of his guilt or his role, and as a foreigner who wasn't present in the United States, he wasn't afforded our Constitutional protections.
On the other hand (Awlaki), you're talking about a guy who was an American citizen, whose publicly acknowledged role in Al Qaeda was limited to acting as an imam and posting sermoms on the Internet, and who pointedly denied the accusation that he was personally involved in terrorist attempts against the United States. Unlike OBL, who admitted his role and oversight of the organization and removed doubt about his culpability, Awlaki claimed innocence in attacks against Americans (he said that he agreed with them and encouraged others to do the same, but said that he wasn't involved in them). We're just supposed to take the word of some unnamed government employees that he was actually guilty of a crime worthy of summary execution.
Yeah, there's a difference. Awlaki may have been a genuine bad guy worthy of execution, and I have no qualms with blowing him and his ilk to bits once that's demonstrated, but that's what TRIALS are for. He should have been indicted and tried in absentia, and a jury should have judged his guilt.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)'superior' rights to all others.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi's grandfather is suing because his 16 year old grandson was also killed.
I haven't seen anything that suggests that he was Al Qaeda. He was also an American. So, at the moment, his status is simply dead American teenager killed by his own government while overseas.
I didn't like torture. I don't like this. Keep in mind, these individuals were also in a country, we're not at war with.
So, let's say one of these little countries gets its act together and decides to send a drone our way. The technology is getting cheaper by a moment. They have a target of interest in our hometown, near our workplace, schools, etc.
Your ex-husband or wife, was into some shady dealings involving their country, so they sent a drone and took him out. But, oops...they took out a child or two while they were at it. Is the fact that they had a good reason to kill the parent, enough to forgive the death of the child also?
Not to mention, aren't these drones creating new communities of people who simply want to kill us. Plus, we get absolutely no actionable intelligence from dead people. But, we do create a boatload of new enemies.
This is bad policy. No matter the president. And, presidents never give back power. So, once the president we like goes out of power...another one, we probably won't like will eventually come into power and this will be his tool, also.
triplepoint
(431 posts)Sample:
From: Michael_Miron@ita.doc.gov
To: info@opic.gov
Subj: COBEOWEHHO (CLASSIFIED - Russia)
George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence (CIA), told North Korea Reconnaissance Bureau about Mayotte (Indian Ocean) frenchelon station : a cryptoanarchist sent EloAufkl (german Elektronische Aufklärung)`s web based CGI proxys & Anonymizers logs to Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) a.k.a. Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna !
Ask 634th Military Intelligence`s contact of Vivendi Universal pollution Dpt via http://www.odci.gov/ic/ for Ref. Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, MI6, Information Security, SAI, Information Warfare.
---Post it all over the Net. Permanently monkey wrench Echelon altogether. It's the patriotic thing to do.
.
.
.
..
.
.
Now, if you're REALLY interested in monkey wrenching the Blue Meanies, hack one of their domestic drones (30,000 strong in the near future):
Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone
American researchers took control of a flying drone by "hacking" into its GPS system - acting on a $1,000 (£640) dare from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
A University of Texas at Austin team used "spoofing" - a technique where the drone mistakes the signal from hackers for the one sent from GPS satellites.
The same method may have been used to bring down a US drone in Iran in 2011.
.
.
Spoofers are a new problem for GPS-guided drones, allowing hackers to trick navigation systems with false information. Humphreys and the team have designed a device costing less than $1,000 that sends out a GPS signal stronger than the ones coming down from orbiting satellites. At first, the rogue signal mimics the official one in order to trick the drone, and once it’s accepted new commands can be sent to the UAV. Naturally, Humphreys highlights the associated risks of such a device, saying that in the wrong hands drones could be turned into missiles. Right now drones can’t be used in US airspace on a wide basis, but Congress has asked the FAA to come up with regulations that would allows drones to fly over the United States by 2015. That could lead to usage in law enforcement, as well as by power companies and delivery firms. The US government says its aware of the potential dangers of spoofing, and officials from the FAA and Department of Homeland Security have seen Humphreys’ demonstration first hand. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly has a program in place to try and solve the problem of GPS interference, but it’s aimed at trying to deal with jammed signals, not spoofed ones.
Reference Links:
http://www.slashgear.com/researchers-find-drones-vulnerable-to-gps-spoofing-29236474
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18643134
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Obsession with National Security (#7 of "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism"
:
"Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous."
.
.
.
*Reference Link:
"Fascism Anyone?" by Laurence W. Britt
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)In some "contexts" on D.U., this report and its analysis would be considered "paranoid," "thinking the government is tyrannical," "RW meme," etc. But we don't have to worry about any of that since this is another "context."
Ain't reality-shifting channel changers fun?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Tried to tell you but the cheerleaders cry rivers when you bring it up.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)But my guess is if other people posted Bush = Obama, and then insult everything that DU stands for according to the ToS (Cheerleader = hard work that people put in to re-elect the President instead of having Mittens re-decorating the Oval Office right now?)
There are plenty of things to criticize Obama about, including the subject matter of this thread. But Obama = Bush, to me, is such over the top hyperbole that it really shouldn't need refuting, on Democratic Underground.
On a self-ish note, my 25 year old brother received great care when he had a hernia and was able to be on my father's insurance.
On an un-selfish note, there are a ton of Unionized American workers that are very grateful that they still have jobs at GM, or anywhere for that matter.
There are countless families and their soldier children that are relieved we did not give into Bibi's pressure and attack Iran. That we left a minimal force in Iraq. That he is not giving in to pressure from Generals to keep a large force in Afghanistan.
As the brave men and women who were discharged under DADT cash their rightfully earned checks they are receiving, let them know that Obama = Bush.
I am pissed about Guantanamo, the expanstion of the Drug War, getting involved in Yemen and Africa, believe me. And I can't prove what the alternative would have been under Mccain, with Palin a heartbeat away from "the button" (shudder), or Romney. But I have an idea. What he has done, and has the chance to do with the Supreme Court, will last for generations to come.
Unless "=" has a new meaning, I would not stoop to that level.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)When a president says he is above the law he starts down the road of being a shitbag dictator.
I don't give fuck how many " jobs" he saved.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)i can't really argue with that solid logic.
Enjoy your intellectual victory.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Enjoy your feel good threads and its OK if a Democrat does rhetoric.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)what he is done is completely within the law.
I suggest you read the memo.
Tell me what part you disagree with.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Since when has "imminent" become a synonym for "maybe".
Sounds like Obama is channeling dick cheney with his 1% bullshit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It would help you read the memo, rather than an article about it.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)We have created a bogeyman/strawman called AQ or Taliban or whatever the name du jour is and no we believe we have authority to kill anyone associated with them. Why? Because they are plotting to harm us? Hello! We have an entire floor at the pentagon that does that very same thing, are othe countries and organizations allowed the same liberties that we are granting ourselves?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)our military adventurism.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)imagination on that flight, bound for Detroit. The Cargo Bomb Plot---not a figment of anyone's imagination. The British Airways Plot--not a figment of anyone's imagination--unless you think Rajib Karim is unjustly imprisoned.
These are acts of terror, not vague boogeymen.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)A dozen countries bombed, unknown amount tortured and thousands upon thousands dead and that is what you got.
Don't look in the mirror, you may see something you don't want to admit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)will convince you.
Was the President correct to target and kill Osama Bin Laden? Or was he a strawman?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)The US is the biggest terrorist group on the planet. And Obama leads it.
Why are we in Libya? AQ? Was there a plot against the US
Why are we in Mali? AQ? Was there a plot against the US
etc., etc., etc.
Is there an AQ card they get when they join or is it a name we give them to justify our military aggression. So if you have more by all means let us know.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)father's case noted, he'd had plenty of opportunity to secure counsel and challenge his status through the courts. He chose not to.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Where is the proof that Awlaki was planning an imminent attack against the US?
Not just saying how awesome it would be to do it. After all, we have hundreds of media personalities in the US that say shit just as bad towards other countries almost daily.
No, wait, they even say it against the US.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Detroit bomb, the Times Square plot, and the Youtube videos?
Or are we just pretending that these are all just shadow plots?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)LOL.
Your comments are exactly why this is an abominations and Obama is a jackass for doing this. You have lowered the bar on what it takes to be an AQ "leader".
Should we have killed the nut that shot up the school with a drone? How about anyone with a gun? Or citizens who act out against a corrupt government?
As for the BA plot, WTF is that. You mean the flight stwardess?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)shocked that you are unfamiliar with that--it wasn't much reported in the MSM in this country, but was all over the World Media, complete with emails from Anwar Awlaki, read in court...
He and his brother had contacted radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, saying they wanted to fight jihad overseas.
Anwar al-Awlaki's perfect grasp of English has made him attractive to Western jihadists
But Mr Awlaki, a US-born preacher, persuaded Karim to stay at BA and find a way of getting a bomb on a plane, saying the IT worker could be the breakthrough al-Qaeda was looking for.
Karim agreed to work with Mr Awlaki and said he would also look at whether he could crash BA's computer systems, bringing chaos to international travel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12788224
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)As for the ba, are talking about a message written on a bathroom wall? Lol.
Should we kill this guy without a judicial hearing?
http://www.i4u.com/2013/01/tennessee/ccw-costs-threat-trainer-gun-permit
He threatened to kill Americans.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Awlaki and Fort Hood--
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/fort-hood-report
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=0
Awlaki and the BA bomb plot--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/28/british-airways-bomb-guilty-karim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352552/Islamic-extremist-Rajib-Karim-BA-job-terror-plot-bomb-flight-US.html#axzz2K5iuHC1w
Confirmation bias.....
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)So, what I did not find was a link saying that AA told the ft hood shooter to do this.
Seems he was pissed about the US bombing and killing Muslims and he decoded to cap a few of the people he saw as the aggressors. Terrorism or vengeance?
How does causing a computer to crash justify killing people. Should we kill anonymous?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)did you cheer that one too?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you found compelling?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)say that is at least a definition of being above it.
Sounds like a Yoo moment. It's not illegal if the President does it.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Perhaps your legal education has been more rigorous that those advising President Obama (or Mr. Obama himself, a former law professor). I suggest that you draft an alternative memo and get it to President Obama ASAP.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Not that has ever stopped Obama from ignoring anyone that doesn't agree with him when it comes to killing and bombing.
Shows how bad our acedemic situation is when Obama thinks this is allowable.
Do you think Yoo and Gonzalez is advising him now like they did bush?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)How far down the bureaucratic ladder should we allow these things to happen?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I find it interesting that a lot of our old "allies" find their demise rather then light being shed on our past relations with them.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)It had to be a quick operation, as Pakistan wasn't exactly cooperative. We couldn't lay siege to the compound.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Moving a live one?
Wait a second, that's crazy talk.
choie
(4,111 posts)to see the evidence against Bin Laden. Oh that's right - that's classified, so we citizens can't know what kind of proof there was that he was behind 9/11. We just have to take their word (and no, I'm not a "truther"
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its as though those who keep pointing out OBL's extra judicial assassination didn't read the OP which is about AMERICANS being targeted for extra judicial assassination by their government.
choie
(4,111 posts)the ACLU than the President's minions.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)we need to look forward rather than backward when it comes to Bush's alleged crimes against humanity and against the peace.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)At least we could get people fired up to protest against this crap when Shrub was in office. There are FAR too many people on the left who think that killing innocent civilians is OK when it's a Democrat pulling the trigger.
The idea of an American government deliberately killing an American citizen without trying him first...or even charging him with a crime...is an affront to everything that this nation is supposed to stand for. It's a fundamental human rights violation, a clear violation of our Constitutional rights, and an insult to everyone who has fought, died, or protested for a free United States.
The fact that it's a Democratic administration authorizing it doesn't make it "better".
There are systems for dealing with this kind of thing. If they want to indict these Americans, try them in absentia, and sentence them to death for fighting against America, I'd have no real problem with dropping a bunker buster on their heads to carry out the sentence once all of the legal steps are completed. But it's absolutely indefensible to allow a relatively small group of government employees to determine who gets to live and who gets to die.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Amazing what the Left cheers when the D is behind the name.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)People won't stand up for issues that they don't care about, against a politician who otherwise supports the issues that they DO care about. Even when Shrub was in office, most of the people who protested this stuff didn't actually care about it...they opposed Shrub for a hundred different reasons and were simply willing to help undermine a politician they already didn't like.
Too few people care about the subject to make any real kind of difference, and nobody is going to protest against a leader they like over something that never really bothered them in the first place. Walk down any street in America and ask people whether they support torturing suspected terrorists. Whether you're in a Democratic area or a Republican one, in a big city or a small town, I guarantee that the responses will depress you.
choie
(4,111 posts)This type of hypocrisy makes me sick.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)A number of Dems are just as craven and sociopathic as the Repukes. I don't know whether they will go along with anything that a Dem does, or if their love of Obama trumps their love of the Constitution.
I can tell you this. This sort of thing is costing the president and the Dems support.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)needed saying.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)Which war did Obama start based on lies? I missed that one.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Oh wait! That doesn't count because "there aren't boots on the ground".
Or, is it, "Obama eneded the Iraq war". Uhhh, no he did not. He followed bush's timeline. The only reason we aren't still there is because they couldn't agree on a SOFA to keep them there longer.
He could have ended the Afghan occupation earlier. Obama did not, he followed bush's plan, again. But now they are back peddling on keeping forces there longer.
Or are we just going to narrow down the debate to one activity that fits your arguement?
Rex
(65,616 posts)go pedal that crap somewhere else.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)If you think the rule of law is garbage go have a rally and say it out loud.
Burning the consitution and some law books should bring you some delight.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
loudsue
(14,087 posts)This isn't going back the other way.
Solly Mack
(90,771 posts)joelz
(185 posts)of shit John Yoo used to dream up,now I see why Obama wanted to look forward instead of charging the bush war criminals
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The full Patriot Act is intact and U.S. citizens are killed by their government without a trial.
Obama's former classmates at Harvard said that Obama thought the Constitution an imperfect document.
Now we know that Obama has qualms about the Bill of Rights as well.
Like Arctic Dave, I didn't think that Obama was a civil libertarian.
Thanks, AD, for giving everyone a heads up on this side of Obama.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)endless daisy chain of corruption and tyranny
PufPuf23
(8,785 posts)Seems like how many degrees of separation are necessary to attack by drone an al-Qaida "enemy" or "suspects that has been funded, created, encouraged, or otherwise influenced by aggressive or at least proactive influence of our own DoD, intelligence agencies, and private wealth accumulations.
USA military culture bi-partisianship in action. Mercy for the children and innocent.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Cameras & microphone recorders in TVs, cameras outfitted in every car, license plate recording cameras at every intersection in every nation of the world, and EDR's & GPS in virtually every car make/model starting in 2012.
Total Information Awareness Program: Big Brother Is Watching, Recording
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)When will we have had enough, that we stop circling the wagons?
When will we have had enough, that we stand up together, as Americans, regardless of party, to oppose this shit?
When?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)We are so inoculated, most of us can't see past the hedges in our own suburbs.
the Gov can preemptively kill US citizens--not only without trial or proof, but without any crime having yet been committed--if the Gov "believes" the person to be a senior leader of a group "associated" with al-Qaida.
And the Gov was certain that Saddam had WMD, before preemptively invading Iraq -- oops.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)yet it appears to be equally worshipped by many the same way a god is, viewing it much in the same way, infallible.
marmar
(77,081 posts)nt
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And if one wants to send PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues, one does so at one's peril---
http://www.juancole.com/2010/10/saudi-arabia-saves-chicago-synagogue-from-al-qaeda-bomb-plot.html
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,488 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yet?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Guess we have Yoo's on our side too. 
lovuian
(19,362 posts)that makes the case real easy to convict
This terrifies me America seems to be going down a very dark path
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Pryderi
(6,772 posts)NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)I believe the people defending this would be calling for impeachment too if the president had an (R) after their name.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Melinda
(5,465 posts)There is much truth in what you say...thanks. 
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Broadening the concept of "imminence" to include fear of attack as itself sufficient justification to attack someone else. That is pretty much identical to the Bush doctrine of preemptive force as far as I can tell.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)international law), the Bush Doctrine was actually 'preventive' (completely illegal under international law unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council). That right there should be sufficient to see Bush and Cheney indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, not that I'm holding my breath.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)They are not friends of Justice nor Peace.
F..king disgusting.
Waitwhat
(11 posts)I can't believe I am reading posts here that actually support this action! WTH? This is something both sides should condemn. How can anyone with a brain support this? Are you OK with a politician being able to kill a US citizen without due process just because they THINK they MAY be a threat? Really? Why? Because THIS guy has a "D" after his name?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is not good.
Leslie Valley
(310 posts)an un-indicted war criminal former President of the United states is nodding and quietly chuckling to himself.
Good thing that impeachment stuff is still off the table.
Waitwhat
(11 posts)Obama is also a war criminal? This white paper came from Obama's administration, not his predecessor. We need to stop blaming the predecessor for everything Obama has done! This is serious stuff with implications for our future. We need to quit focusing on the past and admit this guy is a nightmare! This is not the Hope and Change I voted for. Is it what you voted for?
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)We get it. This isn't what/whom you voted for.
What did you vote for?
Love the name, btw.
Waitwhat
(11 posts)I voted for the guy that promised to close Gitmo, end the war, not involve us in more wars that we had no business in, I voted for the senator that said increasing the debt limit was due to a lack of leadership and "unpatriotic". I voted for the the guy that promised to be a uniter. That is not what we have gotten. Now he says he can kill anyone he THINKS MAY BE a threat. No due process. That is unforgivable. I have made my last excuses for this typical politician. He has killed three Americans in drone strikes.....one was a 16 year old. Every American should have a big problem with this, no matter what their politics are.
When do we say enough is enough?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)and having people hauled off and summarily executed, just like Saddam did in Iraq.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)Shock and Awe - okay. Torture - okay, Extra-judicial killing of American Citizens - okay.
Shining beacon on the hill, indeed.
What have we become? What have "WE" allowed?
We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!
For once, I can almost understand the rabid right's call for arms and possible insurrection.... it's a topsy-turvy upside down fucked up existence here in America.....
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> In the end, you have a President going into Congress, accusing enemies of being "associated forces",
> and having people hauled off and summarily executed, just like Saddam did in Iraq.
Hauling people off and summarily executing them is technically better than lobbing a couple of
missiles in their direction and screw the "collateral damage" ...
(Not that the latter behaviour sets a particularly high or admirable standard of course.)
