Drone strikes on americans 'legal'

#76
#76
It's probably worse than you thought:

[t]he 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.

[T]he 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.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Click to expand...

Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens - Hit & Run : Reason.com
 
#77
#77
Yep - I posted that earlier.

Even Dems have a problem with this:

Wyden, senators ask president to release targeted killing memos | Politics | Eugene News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KVAL CBS 13

Up to this point, Wyden has been mostly alone among elected officials in calling for the Obama administration's release of the legal opinions that it has kept from Congress.

In February 2012, Wyden wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding to see the legal opinions. He has never received an official response; however, Holder and other administration officials, including Brennan, gave public speeches in which they outlined the administration's reasoning of when the president can order the killing of an American suspected of terrorism.

But Wyden said the speeches weren't enough, and a day after a KATU.com interview on the subject, he sent a similar letter to Brennan, again demanding Congress be given the legal opinions.

That was three weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Hooray for transparency!

Senators signing the letter

Ron Wyden, D-Ore. (Select Committee on Intelligence)
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
Mike Lee, R-Utah
Mark Udall, D-Colo. (Select Committee on Intelligence)
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Susan Collins, R-Maine (Select Committee on Intelligence)
Dick Durbin, D-Ill
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt
Tom Udall, D-N.M.
Mark Begich, D-Alaska
Al Franken, D-Minn.
Click to expand...
 
#79
#79
My bad...I missed that you posted that. You can always count on Franken on issues like this.
 
#80
#80
My biggest complaint concerning the memo has little to do with drone strikes, per se. On the top of page two, the first sentence of the first paragraph there, states:

Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment...
Click to expand...

So, which U.S. citizens do not have [legal and Constitutional] rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment? Why is the "may have" included in this sentence?
 
#81
#81
I am perfectly fine with Senators or Reps from both parties asking about it. There's a lot to be concerned about, I agree.

I'm just saying 1) it's kind of sick how there are some auto-detractors that criticize this solely because it is Obama administration; and 2) while I want to know more about safeguards to prevent abuse, I certainly see how, in this particular fight, we can't do it business as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
I am perfectly fine with Senators or Reps from both parties asking about it. There's a lot to be concerned about, I agree.

I'm just saying 1) it's kind of sick how there are some auto-detractors that criticize this solely because it is Obama administration; and 2) while I want to know more about safeguards to prevent abuse, I certainly see how, in this particular fight, we can't do it business as usual.
Click to expand...

Cannot? As in, it is impossible? Or, choose not? Further, is it possible that options exist that will neutralize terrorism and neuter the terrorist threat that are not based on lethal force and executions?
 
#84
#84
therealUT said:
Cannot? As in, it is impossible? Or, choose not? Further, is it possible that options exist that will neutralize terrorism and neuter the terrorist threat that are not based on lethal force and executions?
Click to expand...

Well, if we have hard intelligence that some guy is planning to strap a bomb on his chest and run into a US consulate, are you suggesting we have to wait until he's running into the front gate to act ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
I am perfectly fine with Senators or Reps from both parties asking about it. There's a lot to be concerned about, I agree.

I'm just saying 1) it's kind of sick how there are some auto-detractors that criticize this solely because it is Obama administration; and 2) while I want to know more about safeguards to prevent abuse, I certainly see how, in this particular fight, we can't do it business as usual.
Click to expand...

If they didn't, who would? Certainly not the "civil libertarians" that the Democratic party is supposedly crawling with.
 
#86
#86
n_huffhines said:
If they didn't, who would? Certainly not the "civil libertarians" that the Democratic party is supposedly crawling with.
Click to expand...

They'd probably have more credibility if they joined in with the others in asking intelligent questions rather than just foam at the mouth and stutter their usual anti-Obama crap.
 
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
They'd probably have more credibility if they joined in with the others in asking intelligent questions rather than just foam at the mouth and stutter their usual anti-Obama crap.
Click to expand...

You need to get over this. This is what you want to focus on because it's not as painful as taking a hard look at your precious POTUS and realizing that he makes W Bush look like an ACLU attorney.
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
Well, if we have hard intelligence that some guy is planning to strap a bomb on his chest and run into a US consulate, are you suggesting we have to wait until he's running into the front gate to act ?
Click to expand...

Planning? Kill someone with a hellfire missile for planning? If the "hard intelligence" is there, along with the location of the individual, then why not alert the consulate so that they are in proper defensive posture, monitor the individual, attempt to capture said individual, and not fire a hellfire missile at the individual (which also causes a hell of a lot of "collateral damage" by the way).
 
#89
#89
lawgator1 said:
The situations are remarkably different, and you know that.

But let's assume your comparison is valid. If we had intelligence that x, y, and z were planning to attack our compound, do you have a problem with our attacking them first? Drone or otherwise?

Because that would seem to be the conclusion one would reach from the criticism I am reading here, i.e. that we have to wait until attacked to fight back.
Click to expand...

Well, except in the case of Bengazi we had the intel but let it go and lost an ambassador along with three others. Why didn't we act first in that instance?
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
Well, if we have hard intelligence that some guy is planning to strap a bomb on his chest and run into a US consulate, are you suggesting we have to wait until he's running into the front gate to act ?
Click to expand...

I prefer conducting a run of a couple of EA-6s around the area...
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
Well, if we have hard intelligence that some guy is planning to strap a bomb on his chest and run into a US consulate, are you suggesting we have to wait until he's running into the front gate to act ?
Click to expand...

Again I'll point out that the memo specifically indicates we do not have to have this type info to vaporize a US citizen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
YorkVol said:
Once again, I'm missing the issue. This sets up a framework for making a targeting decision against high ranking AQ leaders. Our challenge has always been what to do if we encounter an American among the AQ. We've gone out of our way in the past to ensure that an US citizens found among the enemy is treated differently than the enemy. Consequently it is in the interest of AQ to recruit American Muslims and have them hang out near the senior leaders as a form of self defense. This paper allows the targeting of those individuals under 3 conditions: there is an imminent threat; capture is not feasible and the attack is done in accordance with the law of warfare.

The use of force against AQ was approved by Congress during the Bush years, so this is simply a continuation of and clarification of that authority.

Again, not sure I see the need for outrage.
Click to expand...

Unless you live next door to Ashet Mahsef
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
I am perfectly fine with Senators or Reps from both parties asking about it. There's a lot to be concerned about, I agree.

I'm just saying 1) it's kind of sick how there are some auto-detractors that criticize this solely because it is Obama administration; and 2) while I want to know more about safeguards to prevent abuse, I certainly see how, in this particular fight, we can't do it business as usual.
Click to expand...

We get it. In your astute opinion, any criticism from the right regarding Obama is simply because "dangit" they just don't like him.

That's your response to everything and it is getting more played out by the day.

Find something new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
VOLinthaATL said:
We get it. In your astute opinion, any criticism from the right regarding Obama is simply because "dangit" they just don't like him.

That's your response to everything and it is getting more played out by the day.

Find something new.
Click to expand...

LG more concerned that someone may be dissing the Pres or gaining political advantage than whether or not Pres or "high level official" can put someone on the kill list and pull the trigger. Telling
 
#96
#96
volinbham said:
LG more concerned that someone may be dissing the Pres or gaining political advantage than whether or not Pres or "high level official" can put someone on the kill list and pull the trigger. Telling
Click to expand...

Such is the life of a liberal. "If you don't agree with us, it's because you're too stupid or just simply because you do not like us."
 
#98
#98
From that article:

So Obama is not simply refusing to tell the general public how his team decides who gets killed and why. He's refusing to tell the U.S. Senate.
Click to expand...

and the sane call to action

In a supposed age of hyper-partisan polarization, here's hoping that senators of both parties can put aside differences to put a stop to a government that is destroying its legitimacy through evasion and secrecy.
Click to expand...
 
#99
#99
volinbham said:
From that article:



and the sane call to action
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm for targeting anyone we can prove has joined the enemy.

But, this lack of sharing gives me a lot of concern. That is unconstitutional to say the least.
 
#100
#100
YorkVol said:
For the record, I'm for targeting anyone we can prove has joined the enemy.

But, this lack of sharing gives me a lot of concern. That is unconstitutional to say the least.
Click to expand...

I'm not against the targeting per se but there ought to be some semblance of due process other than vesting the authority in a "high level official".

Hell, they won't even say what qualifies as a high level official? Is Holder high enough?

Just who is making the call as judge, jury and executioner? Apparently not even a Senate committee is allowed to know.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top