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

'Judge, jury and executioner'

Whitewing

Well-known member
Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”

The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”

“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wrote.

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

That last sentence basically says it ALL folks. Where the fark does this end? When the fark is the line finally drawn?

That our forum leftists sit on their hands on this one is most telling. Again, thank you King Obama for exposing the utter, miserable hypocrisy and the total lack of principles by those who whined constantly about the Bush Admin pouring water down the noses of THREE out of HUNDREDS of suspected foreign terrorists.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Just wait til they start screaming on the Sunday morning talk shows.

This ain't over yet. But Buckwheat always gets a pass.

He's Black you know, and no one wants to upset him for fear of being racist. :lol: :lol:

I doubt the local lunatics even read the White paper. It's chilling.......
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
And the left screamed when GW ordered wire taps. :roll:

Indeed they did, all over the net, including here.

This story and the non-reaction by the left is nothing short of amazing to me. But, silly me, I keep ascribing principles to those who long ago proved that they possess the principles of a sack of dung.
 

Mike

Well-known member
“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
So obama thinks that the US should be the "global police force"? :???:

Yep,.. as soon as he gets Hegal at defense he will start up the global police force..

and it will run like the Chicago police force..

Chicago Dials Back on 911 Responses
Dispatchers Won't Send Police to Minor Incidents So They Can Work on Reducing Number of Homicides

CHICAGO—Police here stopped physically responding to some 911 calls for non-life-threatening issues this week so officers can focus on stemming the city's rising homicide rate

Under the new policy, dispatchers will route 911 calls reporting non-criminal complaints or crimes in which no one is in imminent danger, such as some car thefts and simple assaults, to desk officers who will fill out police reports by phone. The new policy prohibits callers from insisting an officer be sent to the scene, as was allowed before.

Police Supt. Garry McCarthy insisted crime prevention “in the future” happens when officers are on patrol, not tied up taking reports at the scene of non-violent incidents.

“I don’t mean to be flippant here, because I’ve been the victim of a burglary at least three or four times,” he said.

Michael Shields, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, said
"This is another example of trying to distract the public…when there really is no change."
(must not be a very good chief if his house was robbed three or four times.. :shock: :? )


so basically we call the UN,.. they file a report.. and we wait for the next call.. and when they attack US,.. we will just be flippant and worry about the others crimes that we can just report to the UN..
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
redrobin said:
I'm for bombing anyone that's fighting with the rag heads against the united states, citizen or not.

Most of us feel that way to a certain degree, though it is a bit unsettling to think a group of politicians in DC get to decide "who's fighting with the rag heads against the US", especially in the case of US citizens.

And one has to ask the question, "if we can kill them over there without a trial, can we not kill them over here without a trial?".

Finally, what constitutes "fighting against the US"? Can you guess who said this:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

See what I mean?

If you couldn't guess the author of that quote, here's a hint.

obama-look-upx-inset-community.jpg
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
redrobin said:
I'm for bombing anyone that's fighting with the rag heads against the united states, citizen or not.

Most of us feel that way to a certain degree, though it is a bit unsettling to think a group of politicians in DC get to decide "who's fighting with the rag heads against the US", especially in the case of US citizens.

And one has to ask the question, "if we can kill them over there without a trial, can we not kill them over here without a trial?".

Finally, what constitutes "fighting against the US"? Can you guess who said this:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

See what I mean?

If you couldn't guess the author of that quote, here's a hint.

obama-look-upx-inset-community.jpg

DC politicians already decided if/when Americans die by sending them to war.

I agree with red robin.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Whitewing said:
redrobin said:
I'm for bombing anyone that's fighting with the rag heads against the united states, citizen or not.

Most of us feel that way to a certain degree, though it is a bit unsettling to think a group of politicians in DC get to decide "who's fighting with the rag heads against the US", especially in the case of US citizens.

And one has to ask the question, "if we can kill them over there without a trial, can we not kill them over here without a trial?".

Finally, what constitutes "fighting against the US"? Can you guess who said this:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

See what I mean?

If you couldn't guess the author of that quote, here's a hint.

obama-look-upx-inset-community.jpg

DC politicians already decided if/when Americans die by sending them to war.

The only problem with that assertion is that it's false. Sending troops into battle is not an automatic death warrant. Sending a HellFire missle someone's way is a death warrant......but in this case, not bothering with the warrant part.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
kolanuraven said:
Whitewing said:
Most of us feel that way to a certain degree, though it is a bit unsettling to think a group of politicians in DC get to decide "who's fighting with the rag heads against the US", especially in the case of US citizens.

And one has to ask the question, "if we can kill them over there without a trial, can we not kill them over here without a trial?".

Finally, what constitutes "fighting against the US"? Can you guess who said this:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

See what I mean?

If you couldn't guess the author of that quote, here's a hint.

obama-look-upx-inset-community.jpg

DC politicians already decided if/when Americans die by sending them to war.

The only problem with that assertion is that it's false. Sending troops into battle is not an automatic death warrant. Sending a HellFire missle someone's way is a death warrant......but in this case, not bothering with the warrant part.

Sorry, in my warped little world, you want to attack and kill me ( USA).....you are going down any way possible!! The strongest will survive!

If this was under the tenure of George Bush, most of you would see no problem with this.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Nice comeback kola, but it was off track of the discussion and even more specifically the assertion you made. WW slapped you down and you sidestep your assertion now.

You know darn well if Bush had done the this this current regime has done you would have been whining like a whipped dog. Your selective outrage is purely pathetic.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Nice comeback kola, but it was off track of the discussion and even more specifically the assertion you made. WW slapped you down and you sidestep your assertion now.

You know darn well if Bush had done the this this current regime has done you would have been whining like a whipped dog. Your selective outrage is purely pathetic.

If Bush had not kicked the wrong ant hill ( Iraq) Al Queda would not have entered there and spread thru the Magreb as it has.

I had no real issue against the so called " torture" tactics they ( Bush et al) used.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sorry, in my warped little world, you want to attack and kill me ( USA).....

Understood, but then, that's not the issue here.

The issue here is who makes the determination that "you want to attack and kill me"? And again, we're not talking about a citizen of Yemen, Somalia, or whatever, we're talking about American citizens.

Didn't you guys blast Bush for claiming that Saddam was a threat to the US? Didn't you guys blast Rumsfeld and George Tenet for claiming that WMD's in Iraq were a "slam dunk"? Bush, Rumsfeld, Tenet....those are some "high government officials" as outlined in Obama's policy paper.

No day in court, no trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence, nothing.........just the word of a high government official.

That doesn't bother you? Really?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Larrry said:
Nice comeback kola, but it was off track of the discussion and even more specifically the assertion you made. WW slapped you down and you sidestep your assertion now.

You know darn well if Bush had done the this this current regime has done you would have been whining like a whipped dog. Your selective outrage is purely pathetic.

If Bush had not kicked the wrong ant hill ( Iraq) Al Queda would not have entered there and spread thru the Magreb as it has.

I had no real issue against the so called " torture" tactics they ( Bush et al) used.


Your outrage against the wire taps was enormous,,,yet you accept the drones because you have a crush on obama and you hated Bush :wink: :wink:
 
Top