Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 16,188 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:12 AM

Uhh, did I miss this already posted, or is everyone just pretending that it's not happening?

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

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
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.

...


lol

#2 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

I wish they would expand the use to include most of the idiots out there.

#3 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

I love killing people because they are "believed to be" something. Solid legal footing there, no doubt.

#4 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:24 AM

http://www.aljazeera...5957645514.html

then there's this.

In the past year alone, the number of individuals placed by the Obama administration on the federal No-Fly list has doubled to over 10,000, with at least 500 being holders of American citizenship. A further 400,000 individuals of indeterminate citizenship are on a separate "watchlist" which flags them as being "reasonably suspicious" and potentially subject to exclusion. The names of those on these lists are not disclosed and neither is the reasoning or evidence as to why any particular individual may be flagged. The American Civil Liberties Union has represented many Americans who believe have been on the No-Fly list and have been banned from travelling for work or to visit family for reasons unknown to them. In the words of ACLU attorney Ben Wizner:


People who are protected by the Constitution have a right to fundamental due process. If the United States government is going to maintain a watch list and prevent people from flying, there has to be some way for people to confront the evidence against them and rebut it.



#5 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 16,188 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

http://www.aljazeera...5957645514.html

then there's this.

My initial response is "wow," but it doesn't seem fitting being that I'm not surprised.

#6 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

the government kills american citizens and fought to keep indefiniate detention of citizens in the ndaa. we know whats happening here.

#7 L.A. Fanatic

L.A. Fanatic

    LOWER YOUR FONT!!!!!!!!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • LocationLALA Land

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

there going to be so many Nick Brody cases now

#8 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,935 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:57 PM

Apparently, some of you still need to be reminded occasionally: America's key decision makers, with their superior abilities and intellect, have been placed in positions of public trust to craft and uphold the laws of the land... but only to a point. Sometimes, those leaders interpret the laws in ways that are too complex for the average citizen to fully appreciate. Here is all you really need to know: Whether our leaders are doing "God's work" on Wall Street, personally enriching themselves at the expense of the middle class and the global economy, or spending billions of taxpayer dollars killing little brown people/Ex Pats in far away lands, they only have America's best interests at heart. Our lofty leaders' enormous responsibility for society's general welfare places them above and beyond any commoner's naïve interpretation of the law. Now go back to debating the merits of Beyoncé's Super Bowl half time performance and whether goats really do like Doritos more than humans. Meanwhile, you can rest easy with the knowledge that important matters of state are better left to the discretion of more capable minds in "quiet rooms". By-the-way, what is that saying about sausages and the affairs of state?

#9 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,935 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:21 PM

Too bad that Peacenik Romney didn't win. No doubt, he would have put an immediate end to this unconstitutional behavior! That is, right after he started another large scale war by bombing Iran. Sometimes, in the real world, it is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

#10 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:56 PM

The lesser of two evils? Kill people or kill people. fuging joke.

#11 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,935 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:24 PM

The lesser of two evils? Kill people or kill people. fuging joke.

We had two men running for president last November that had any viable chance of being elected. One was on record for wanting to reduce our military budget and overseas military presence. The other wanted to increase the size of our military budget and was actively warmongering for yet another major conflict. Maybe that is too fine a difference for you to appreciate, but it was pretty clear to me.

#12 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

Gubmint love me, consparcy consparcy.

The Gov doesn't give two shits about any of us, who knew...

#13 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,494 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:42 AM

Going after an american working for Al Qaeda should be allowed. Being a citizen shouldn't be a shield for those who seek to kill us. IMO, its no different than going after Americans who took up arms against us in World War II.

The United States is currently in the midst of an armed conflict against Al Qaeda, (authorized by congress), and it may act in self defense against those who intend harm against US citizens. This is accepted under the laws of war that don't change whether its a democrat or a republican in the white house.

#14 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:51 AM

Who decides who is working with who? Oh that's right, the same people who send the drones.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com