23 replies to this topic

[Kafkaesque]

http://openchannel.n...-americans?lite

Quote

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 abroad, 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.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Two years from now ... "we believe that Ma Tucker, who runs the grocery store in Nosebleed Teneesese is actually a highly ranked member of Al Quiededa, and therefore we have lawfully executed a drone strike upon her command centre. Sadly this also resulted in the deaths of a dozen other people, but we're at war USA USA USA!".

[Kafkaesque]

Wearer of Hats, on 05 February 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Two years from now ... "we believe that Ma Tucker, who runs the grocery store in Nosebleed Teneesese is actually a highly ranked member of Al Quiededa, and therefore we have lawfully executed a drone strike upon her command centre. Sadly this also resulted in the deaths of a dozen other people, but we're at war USA USA USA!".

A new form of McCarthyism.

[Corp]

Dangerous policy and sounds like it's wide open to abuse. Hopefully it gets challenged and either overturned or gets a very detailed set of guidelines.

[Kafkaesque]

Corp, on 05 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Dangerous policy and sounds like it's wide open to abuse. Hopefully it gets challenged and either overturned or gets a very detailed set of guidelines.

Charlottesville, Virginia became the first city in the US to ban drones in its airspace, or use of drones by any agency in the city - federal or local.

They need to lead by example.

[Babe Ruth]

Corp, on 05 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Dangerous policy and sounds like it's wide open to abuse. Hopefully it gets challenged and either overturned or gets a very detailed set of guidelines.

It won't get challenged, or if it does, the corrupt judiciary will see it upheld.

That's what happened with the NDAA amendment which is just as unconstitutional as this particular usurpation.  The District Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional, but Holder & Obama appealed, and the next court up overturned the lower court.

The Constitution is toast.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Eonwe, on 05 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Charlottesville, Virginia became the first city in the US to ban drones in its airspace, or use of drones by any agency in the city - federal or local.

They need to lead by example.

And Pakistan banned it in their airspace. Doesn't stop them.

[pallidin]

Eonwe, on 05 February 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

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.

Sounds reasonable to me. Get them before there IS an active plot, which, of course, there always is.

[Raptor Witness]

I always had a particular dislike for the underwear bomber. The ACLU needs to pick a better candidate as a test case. I'll take the CIA's word that Anwar al-Aulaqi was a "bad guy."

On the other hand, I wouldn't want it to be precedent setting, either.

[lightly]

Quote

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.

                                                                                                     

[pallidin]

So, Lightly, you're obviously OK with more Islamic terrorist attacks, whether active or in planning stage.

I'm NOT.

Americans or otherwise, if they are associated with al-Qaeda, I say take them out in a puff of smoke.

[Michelle]

Of course, if you object to the entire premise you are automatically a suspect and are going to be watched 24/7.

[Simbi Laveau]

Eonwe, on 05 February 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

A new form of McCarthyism.

That never dawned on me before. Probably because its so much worse than McCarthyism ,but you're right .

[Kafkaesque]

Simbi Laveau, on 06 February 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

That never dawned on me before. Probably because its so much worse than McCarthyism ,but you're right .

I'm just personally inclined to believe it could be a set up for that type of deal.

[lightly]

pallidin, on 06 February 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

So, Lightly, you're obviously OK with more Islamic terrorist attacks, whether active or in planning stage.

I'm NOT.

Americans or otherwise, if they are associated with al-Qaeda, I say take them out in a puff of smoke.

   No, of course NOT.  I'm not OK with anyone attacking anyone.    I'm not OK  with (as i bolded)  American citizens being killed because they are BELIEVED  to be something  EVEN if there is NO INTELLIGENCE  to prove it.    As stated in the  alleged  " confidential Justice Department memo "