US Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on it's citizens

Users who are viewing this thread

*Imaaaaaaaginaaaaation*
When the police get's their hands on this eventually:

Hey, them thar varmin's are protestin' summin' an' tha rich folks that payroll us are mighty antsy 'bout it. Call inna strike!

That thar guy is three days pas' payin' forra drivin' vi'lation'. Call inna strike!

That thar dog is barkin' loudly at ouse...CALL INNA STRIKE!

*end Imaaaaaaaginaaaaation*

...
>.>
...
<.<
...
>.>
Don't judge me.
Just furthering the arguments that get thrown about from wanton taser use by police.
 
Yeah, it's a flimsy argument but has that ever stopped them in the past?

Most Americans probably don't even know about this. They wouldn't know a threat to their liberties unless it caused a lapse in their cell phone service or signal on their televisions.
 
Before we all get up in arms about this, I feel a little clarification is in order:

Administration lawyers found it is lawful to kill an American citizen if a “high-level” government official believes the target is an operational leader of al Qaeda who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if capture is infeasible, according to a newly disclosed Justice Department document.

So not just any terrorist organization but specifically Al-Qaeda member, who also has to be high enough to warrant such a strike and cannot be captured in a "timely manner", I assume is the unsaid addition to that sentence.

Yeah, it's bad but not quite "let's gas the terrorists, who cares if we kill hundreds of civilians"-Russian or "let's just indiscriminately shoot and bomb civilians, some of them are probably terrorists"-Syrian&Libyan level.
 
thick1988 said:
A government that justifies drone killings of it's own citizens can justify anything.

Oh come on, this statement is just ridiculous. Slippery slope all the way. There is no conceptual difference between authorizing strikes on foreign militants on foreign soil and US militants on foreign soil. Either you do both or you do neither. The nationality of the target is irrelevant. The entire justification for it is that the target is outside the reach of conventional law enforcement.


That said, the White House white paper is wrong when it claims that there is no appropriate forum to judge drone strikes as legal or illegal. This is clearly a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, especially since the basis for it relies on an interpretation of the President's Constittutional powers related to the use of armed force without a declaration of war.

At the risk of certain forumites crawling out of the woodwork and calling me a Republinazi or conservative or whatever, I am in favor of the drone strike program. But not how it is currently justified.action of this nature should at least require an act of Congress legitimizing it and setting clear boundaries.

Also, there's no risk of this eventually allowing the government to execute Americans in the US via drone strikes. That's just plain fearmongering nonsense. As I explained at the start of the post, the entire point of extra judicial killings is that the target is not within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement and cannot feasibly be captured and prosecuted.
 
The thing is the US government does not have to show any proof that they were involved in a plot. We just have to take their word for it.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”

 
It's pretty much all up to Obama's wisdom and judgement and he doesn't like sharing any information. If anything, his administration is even more secretive than the Dubya Gang.

Even if he only ordered strikes against foreigners it would still be a bad thing.
 
Sir Saladin said:
It's pretty much all up to Obama's wisdom and judgement and he doesn't like sharing any information. If anything, his administration is even more secretive than the Dubya Gang.

That, and he likes to always play the role of the standup guy on the outside looking on at all the crazy, repugnant, squabbling underlings. He is just a totally different animal all together.  :roll:
 
Jhessail said:
Before we all get up in arms about this, I feel a little clarification is in order:

Administration lawyers found it is lawful to kill an American citizen if a “high-level” government official believes the target is an operational leader of al Qaeda who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if capture is infeasible, according to a newly disclosed Justice Department document.

So not just any terrorist organization but specifically Al-Qaeda member, who also has to be high enough to warrant such a strike and cannot be captured in a "timely manner", I assume is the unsaid addition to that sentence.

Yeah, it's bad but not quite "let's gas the terrorists, who cares if we kill hundreds of civilians"-Russian or "let's just indiscriminately shoot and bomb civilians, some of them are probably terrorists"-Syrian&Libyan level.

When I was reading about this, the point of worry was not about Al-Qaeda members, but the "associated force". That is such a broad term that it does cause a bit of concern. Also, there is the concept in the CIA which performs many of these strikes that "any male of military age within a strike area is a combatant".

Kobrag said:
*Imaaaaaaaginaaaaation*
When the police get's their hands on this eventually:

Hey, them thar varmin's are protestin' summin' an' tha rich folks that payroll us are mighty antsy 'bout it. Call inna strike!

That thar guy is three days pas' payin' forra drivin' vi'lation'. Call inna strike!

That thar dog is barkin' loudly at ouse...CALL INNA STRIKE!

*end Imaaaaaaaginaaaaation*

...
>.>
...
<.<
...
>.>
Don't judge me.
Just furthering the arguments that get thrown about from wanton taser use by police.

US police already have traffic drones, border patrol operates Predator drones. Several police departments have been cleared to operate Predators as well. US police departments have been using military grade hardware for a while. I used to live in a state where you couldn't drive more than two blocks without seeing a patrol car. Yet they didn't do much to make the state safer, just gave out speeding tickets to fund the growth of their department.
 
Actually, that's exactly the point. He's saying that Cheney's policies and Obama's are essentially indistinguishable.
 
Which I find astonishing given the amount of effort and money that was expended to convince Americans and the world that we were getting a new kind of hope and change with Obama.
 
Anthropoid said:
Which I find astonishing given the amount of effort and money that was expended to convince Americans and the world that we were getting a new kind of hope and change with Obama.

So you think John McCain or Mitt Romney would have ushered in a new golden age of peace, prosperity and a government people could trust? Obama was still the lesser evil both times. It's sad but true.

Now let's get another Nobel Peace Prize for Obama but this time the medal should be in the shape of a missile. He already got one for escalating the war in Afghanistan but he deserves a new peace prize for every new term, I think.
 
Duh's posts basically stated that this policy is bipartisan.how would that trigger your allergy?
 
Back
Top Bottom