• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Holder to Obama: No problem killing American citizens

Whitewing

Well-known member
Where's the line going to be drawn folks? OT, Kola, any other forum supporters of this regime care to explain to me how this program is acceptable to you?

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

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.

=====================

Not to mention not having had a day in court.

I'm going to visit the Lunatic Underground to see what a few principled liberals have to say about this issue. Should be interesting.

Oh, read the story.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
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.

Do any of the Obamabots not see how this program can be ratcheted up a notch or two?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had been in on this

Well, if nothing else, the King has served the valuable function of revealing the complete and utter hypocrisy and malleable "principles" of those who whined contantly about Bush trampling the US Constitution.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Comical-- a few years ago you all were all whining about Bill Clinton not taking the bull by the horns and taking out Osama Bin Laden with air strikes when he had the chance, which allowed him to pull off 9/11---

AND

Now that we have a President with the gonads to go after the bad guys before they commit another 9/11 and take them out--- and you'all are still whining.......
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Comical-- a few years ago you all were all whining about Bill Clinton not taking the bull by the horns and taking out Osama Bin Laden with air strikes when he had the chance, which allowed him to pull off 9/11---

AND

Now that we have a President with the gonads to go after the bad guys before they commit another 9/11 and take them out--- and you'all are still whining.......

Well we don't have to worry about every getting any intel from them in the future as Buckwheat wants to blow them up. Maybe they know something he doesn't want US to know.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Comical-- a few years ago you all were all whining about Bill Clinton not taking the bull by the horns and taking out Osama Bin Laden with air strikes when he had the chance, which allowed him to pull off 9/11---

AND

Now that we have a President with the gonads to go after the bad guys before they commit another 9/11 and take them out--- and you'all are still whining.......

Osama Bin Laden was an American citizen? :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Comical-- a few years ago you all were all whining about Bill Clinton not taking the bull by the horns and taking out Osama Bin Laden with air strikes when he had the chance, which allowed him to pull off 9/11---

AND

Now that we have a President with the gonads to go after the bad guys before they commit another 9/11 and take them out--- and you'all are still whining.......

Your Messiah and Hitlary LET four Americans in Benghazi die horrible deaths, and did nothing but LIE about it. Gonads my aching a$$! :mad:

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph but you are either senile or retarded, or BOTH! :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Justice Dept. document justifies killing Americans overseas if they pose ‘imminent threat’

By Karen DeYoung,
Feb 05, 2013 06:36 AM EST

The Washington Post Published: February 4
The United States can lawfully kill a U.S. citizen overseas if it determines the target is a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Justice Department document published late Monday by NBC News.

The document defines “imminent threat” expansively, saying it does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack since such actions are being “continually” planned by al-Qaeda. “In this context,” it says, “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity” as well as possible collateral damage to civilians.

Guiding the evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies: White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling a “playbook” that will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The memos outline the case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterror operations overseas.

It says that such determinations can be made by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

NBC said the document was provided by the Obama administration last summer to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees as a summary of a classified memo on targeted killings of U.S. citizens prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The memo was written months prior to a September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Muslim cleric accused of helping al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate plan attacks against the United States. Three other Americans, including Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, have also been killed in U.S. strikes in Yemen.


If an American citizen voluntarily chooses to go to a foreign country- and live in a snakepit with a denful of rattlesnakes- and has been shown thru a prescribed policy and procedure to present a threat to our country/citizens -- have at them... Take them out...
 

Mike

Well-known member
“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”
In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
So it's OK to kill American bad guys in foreign countries.....even though they have committed no crimes on American soil nor had their day in a US Court.....

BUT

What about American good guys working (for the American government) in foreign countries whose lives are in imminent danger, when the means to rescue them is readily available?

Yup...Kill 'em all (or let 'em die) and let God sort them out. You are a real piece of work... :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
let the obama regime or any president for that matter to be the judge jury and executioner is so away from the principles of this country. You are making that line so much easier to cross the next time when you allow this
 

Steve

Well-known member
If an American citizen voluntarily chooses to go to a foreign country- and live in a snakepit with a denful of rattlesnakes- and has been shown thru a prescribed policy and procedure to present a threat to our country/citizens -- have at them... Take them out...

sounds good today,.. but what about next year when they drop a requirement or two...

If an American citizen voluntarily chooses to go to a foreign country- - and has been shown thru a prescribed policy and procedure to present a threat to our country/citizens -- have at them... Take them out...

still it isn't to bad.. but what about later.. when they only drop a word or two..

If an American citizen voluntarily chooses to go to a foreign country- - and has been shown thru a prescribed policy to present a threat to our country/citizens -- have at them... Take them out...

and eventually..

If an American citizen has been shown thru a prescribed policy to present a threat -- have at them... Take them out...

but by then we won't be around to challenge them...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Comical-- a few years ago you all were all whining about Bill Clinton not taking the bull by the horns and taking out Osama Bin Laden with air strikes when he had the chance, which allowed him to pull off 9/11---

AND

Now that we have a President with the gonads to go after the bad guys before they commit another 9/11 and take them out--- and you'all are still whining.......

Osama Bin Laden was an American citizen? :roll:

Yes, that's the rotting dead elephant in the corner that OT forgot to mention. The old fool continues arguing points no one makes. Later I'll post some gems of his re his staunch beliefs in the US Constitution. :roll:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

===========================



As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

==========================

Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...

When we allow anyone to bend or go around the law- or put themselves out to be above the law, then we start down a slippery slope- something I think this Administration has done since day one on a whole lot more issues besides torture...

===============================

And then he posted and highlighted the following quote for all you heathens out there who disregard the sancity of the US Constitution:

Quote:
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Source: part of his dissent in the case "Olmstead v. United States", 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

=============================

It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

...................

Unless Obama says so apparently.

Isn't it amazing how flexible his principles are? What a difference a (D) makes behind the president's name instead of an (R)...though "he's really quite conservative", ya know. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Great post WW. Shows just how Democrat idiocy must be contagious.

OT is the Flip-Floppingest SOB ever. A real work of art. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
OT.....do you contribute to the ACLU??

Nope- but Bush's throwing out of the Constitution- and his attorneys opinions that they could pick anyone- citizen or not- off the street- whisk them away to a hidden prison without warrent or judicial review- or transport them around the world to secret torture prisons is the reason folks like Bob Barr and many other Constitutional lawyers have donated a lot of work to the ACLU......


Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
I guess tha fact that you need /want a court to decide who gets "indefinite detention" just means you don't trust your guy in the whitehouse!

Nope but thats been our standard of law and rule of law for over 230 years....No one man should be policeman, judge, jury, and executioner...Everyone should have their right to be judged-- and the courts in previous decisions and now against Bush have ruled that these detainees have the right to initial and periodic hearings-either by a court or a military tribunal- but Bush refused to sit up the infrastructure to do it....

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.


Oldtimer said:
So it will not be a decision by one man - Bush or Cheney- but instead will be a court or tribunal that decides they qualify for indefinite detention...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Guiding the evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies: White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling a “playbook” that will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The memos outline the case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterror operations overseas.

It says that such determinations can be made by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

I still have no problem with this... This is no different than trying a person in abstentia- which is common practice with international tribunals/courts because international suspects are not easily apprehended and was used during the Nuremberg War Crimes trials....
You still have officials/tribunal making decisions based on prescribed protocol and procedure and on evidence presented just like a judge does.... Maybe they should have a special court of Judges doing it to give it more credence -- but trying to get a judge when opportunity presents itself could end up like Clinton and Osama- with Osama getting away...

And historically we have had Judges issuing Dead or Alive warrants based on probable cause for many years past... And those were for US citizens- inside the boundaries of the U.S.- that were deemed to be an imminent danger to the citizenry- and needed to be taken out at any cost...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Guiding the evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies: White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling a “playbook” that will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

The memos outline the case for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens in counterterror operations overseas.

It says that such determinations can be made by an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

I still have no problem with this... This is no different than trying a person in abstentia- which is common practice with international tribunals/courts because international suspects are not easily apprehended and was used during the Nuremberg War Crimes trials....
You still have officials/tribunal making decisions based on prescribed protocol and procedure and on evidence presented just like a judge does.... Maybe they should have a special court of Judges doing it to give it more credence -- but trying to get a judge when opportunity presents itself could end up like Clinton and Osama- with Osama getting away...

And historically we have had Judges issuing Dead or Alive warrants based on probable cause for many years past... And those were for US citizens- inside the boundaries of the U.S.- that were deemed to be an imminent danger to the citizenry- and needed to be taken out at any cost...


but detention without trial, was a "war crime", correct?
 
Top