Obama says he has the authority to kill civilians

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama claims and orders that he has the authority to kill American civilians anywhere outside the Country any time he decides it is needed. All without Judicial, military or legal opinions actions or considerations.

His policy allows high level officials to simply say a person might be a threat and can not be captured, then with no consolation with the Military or Judiciary or Congress a drone attack to KILL that person can be ordered. A US Citizen, deprived of due process and all his Constitutional rights based solely on the Opinion of the President or high ranking officials.

Go ahead Obama supporters explain to us how this is legal or Constitutional. Show us you support the outright murder of anyone Obama feels like killing for just about any reason.,

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's been claiming this for years.

 

[Mad Scientist]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

 

[NoNukes]

If Obama was defending these terrorists and saying that deserved their day in court, right wingers would be screaming bloody murder and calling him a traitor and a Muslim.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He does it, so saying so isn't really worth anything. Furthermore, that's an unsigned paper produced while a policy for this behaviour was being drawn up in case Romney won the elections. Now, that is all backburner and will likely never happen.


Is there a point here besides distraction and Obama bashing?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

Be interesting to see whether deaths of innocent civilians from drone strikes in the U.S. would be "collateral damage."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

Be interesting to see whether deaths of innocent civilians from drone strikes in the U.S. would be "collateral damage."

That use seems highly unnecessary on our soil. We have DHS, Fusion centers, CIA, FBI, ATF and a host of other homeland forces to ensure rendition of individuals deemed threats are removed quietly and without much incident. Maybe in another WACO scenario....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

Be interesting to see whether deaths of innocent civilians from drone strikes in the U.S. would be "collateral damage."

That use seems highly unnecessary on our soil. We have DHS, Fusion centers, CIA, FBI, ATF and a host of other homeland forces to ensure rendition of individuals deemed threats are removed quietly and without much incident. Maybe in another WACO scenario....

I think it's inevitable. They just take incremental steps. At first it's just "terrorists," then it can be American citizens overseas, and eventually within U.S. borders. And why not? They're "targeted" after all, right? It's only a matter of time before that argument is made, I think.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The "collateral damage" would probably create a climate that the federalis dont want to have. This isn't neat and clean. it's messy. And that's why I can't see it happening here. They know it's ok to do it in Yemen, Pakistan, etc...because US citizens are largely none the wiser. You start doing that in US neighborhoods and things take on a brand new perspective for the average pleb.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The "collateral damage" would probably create a climate that the federalis dont want to have. This isn't neat and clean. it's messy. And that's why I can't see it happening here. They know it's ok to do it in Yemen, Pakistan, etc...because US citizens are largely none the wiser. You start doing that in US neighborhoods and things take on a brand new perspective for the average pleb.

You make a good point.

 

[PratchettFan]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

Be interesting to see whether deaths of innocent civilians from drone strikes in the U.S. would be "collateral damage."

Good God. The only thing a drone is is a different method of delivering a bomb and we have been doing that for more than a century. What do you think happens when a bomb goes off? Somehow before drones innocent civilians weren't killed? We have been calling that collateral damage since WWI.

Here is some information.... war is messy. Innocent people die from it all of the time. Little babies are blown to little tiny pieces. Whenever we send people into combat, children die. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether it is caused by drones, planes or artillery. It's all the same thing and none of it gives a damn whether someone is a soldier, a terrorist or a civilian. Anyone who thinks we can enter into any kind of war and not kill innocents is seriously fooling themselves.

Now, if you are opposed to the war in Afganistan and want us out right now, then you have an argument. Otherwise, you're just quibbling about how we kill innocents not whether we should kill them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Does President Barack Obama have the right to order the assassination of an American anywhere in the world—without any oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if that U.S. citizen is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack? His administration, in a stunning Justice Department memo laying out a broad legal rationale for the country's ever-expanding drone war, says yes.
...“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”

Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

 

[cereal_killer]

We have a couple discussions going already on this one. Thanks for sharing but we are going to close this one up.

 

[hazlnut]

Go ahead Obama supporters explain to us how this is legal or Constitutional. Show us you support the outright murder of anyone Obama feels like killing for just about any reason.,

You suck at reading.

Writing a memo is perfectly legal.

Get a brain, dunce.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there are like a half dozen threads on this. you people need to start diversifying your news sources...jesus

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And since he has this authority outside the US, might as well use it inside the US right? Just to keep us all "safe".

Slowly turning the water up to boil.

Oh wait! more to the story

Left Wing MSNBC Publishes DOJ White Paper On Targeted Drone Killings


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

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

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

The leftists in America have attacked President Obama's policy here and the right wingers have joined them, without mentioning it is the left and teh ACLU who are attacking and challenging the Obama admin the most over this.

We have a Columbia Law Professor debating an ACLU Lawyer over what it all means: Video and transcript

The Justice Department?s White Paper on Targeted Killing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/obama-slow-to-reveal-secrets-on-targeted-killings.html


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

------------------

So what is it that has the right, anarchists, libertarian kook types and others wetting their pants? You'd have to see or read a transcript of an actual civil and sane debate over what little has been revealed: Justice Department Justifies Killing Americans Abroad With Links to al-Qaida | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 5, 2013 | PBS


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

GWEN IFILL: Matthew Waxman, are these standards that you see laid out in this white paper open to manipulation?

MATTHEW WAXMAN, Columbia Law School: Well, I had a different reaction than Ms. Shamsi did to this document.

As I read it, I see it as careful and narrow. I still have some questions about it. It's a summary document and there are parts of it that leave some gaps in my mind as to how the reasoning unfolded. But I think this is a serious effort to articulate limits to the president's power to engage in targeted killing and a reasonable effort to translate constitutional and international law to deal with this new kind of war.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you this, Professor Waxman. If this only applies to Americans on foreign soil, why wouldn't this reasoning apply to Americans on U.S. soil at home?

MATTHEW WAXMAN: Well, what one of the things that the lawyers -- the drafters of this memo do is try to explain that this is an analysis of a limited set of facts, a set of facts that were probably provided by senior officials to deal with situations that confront them in the real world.

And I think one of the important points that the article makes -- I'm sorry -- that the memo makes is that we are engaged in an ongoing war, an ongoing armed conflict with al-Qaida, and this is a conflict that is not contained to traditional battlefields abroad, places like Afghanistan.

That's a position, by the way, that now two presidents of both parties, Congress and the courts have all essentially embraced.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Hina Shamsi about that.

If this indeed is a brave new day and that there ought to be more latitude given to governments to protect themselves, how do you argue against them taking that latitude and running with it?

HINA SHAMSI: Well, first of all, I think it's an overstatement to say that these are standards that are narrow and restricted. They're not if you read the memo.

The ACLU Lawyer is like many posters here @ USMB...she says "if you read the memo." ignoring the fact that the Columbia Law Professor has read the memo and is actually debating what he read, not what she insists it says.

That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama memo justifies drone-war killing of Americans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama claims and orders that he has the authority to kill American civilians anywhere outside the Country any time he decides it is needed. All without Judicial, military or legal opinions actions or considerations.

His policy allows high level officials to simply say a person might be a threat and can not be captured, then with no consolation with the Military or Judiciary or Congress a drone attack to KILL that person can be ordered. A US Citizen, deprived of due process and all his Constitutional rights based solely on the Opinion of the President or high ranking officials.

Go ahead Obama supporters explain to us how this is legal or Constitutional. Show us you support the outright murder of anyone Obama feels like killing for just about any reason.,

let us see what you are talking about....

Left Wing MSNBC Publishes DOJ White Paper On Targeted Drone Killings


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

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

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

The leftists in America have attacked President Obama's policy here and the right wingers have joined them, without mentioning it is the left and teh ACLU who are attacking and challenging the Obama admin the most over this.

We have a Columbia Law Professor debating an ACLU Lawyer over what it all means: Video and transcript

The Justice Department?s White Paper on Targeted Killing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/obama-slow-to-reveal-secrets-on-targeted-killings.html


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

------------------

So what is it that has the right, anarchists, libertarian kook types and others wetting their pants? You'd have to see or read a transcript of an actual civil and sane debate over what little has been revealed: Justice Department Justifies Killing Americans Abroad With Links to al-Qaida | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 5, 2013 | PBS


That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

GWEN IFILL: Matthew Waxman, are these standards that you see laid out in this white paper open to manipulation?

MATTHEW WAXMAN, Columbia Law School: Well, I had a different reaction than Ms. Shamsi did to this document.

As I read it, I see it as careful and narrow. I still have some questions about it. It's a summary document and there are parts of it that leave some gaps in my mind as to how the reasoning unfolded. But I think this is a serious effort to articulate limits to the president's power to engage in targeted killing and a reasonable effort to translate constitutional and international law to deal with this new kind of war.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you this, Professor Waxman. If this only applies to Americans on foreign soil, why wouldn't this reasoning apply to Americans on U.S. soil at home?

MATTHEW WAXMAN: Well, what one of the things that the lawyers -- the drafters of this memo do is try to explain that this is an analysis of a limited set of facts, a set of facts that were probably provided by senior officials to deal with situations that confront them in the real world.

And I think one of the important points that the article makes -- I'm sorry -- that the memo makes is that we are engaged in an ongoing war, an ongoing armed conflict with al-Qaida, and this is a conflict that is not contained to traditional battlefields abroad, places like Afghanistan.

That's a position, by the way, that now two presidents of both parties, Congress and the courts have all essentially embraced.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Hina Shamsi about that.

If this indeed is a brave new day and that there ought to be more latitude given to governments to protect themselves, how do you argue against them taking that latitude and running with it?

HINA SHAMSI: Well, first of all, I think it's an overstatement to say that these are standards that are narrow and restricted. They're not if you read the memo.

The ACLU Lawyer is like many posters here @ USMB...she says "if you read the memo." ignoring the fact that the Columbia Law Professor has read the memo and is actually debating what he read, not what she insists it says.

That said...is the right and others arguing that terrorism should be dealt as a law enforcement problem and not militarily?

 

[KissMy]

Obama using drones to shoot at US civillians is just one more reason I am keeping my AR15 loaded with high capacity magazines. You have no chance at trying to shoot that drone down with a 6 shooter pistol.

Also drones only cost around $100 that can be armed to shoot people. Criminals will now be using these to do remote fly-by-shootings instead of risking themselves in drive-by-shootings. We are going to need those "high capacity assault rifles" to bring these things down.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jplh7uatr-E"]Civilian Drone Warfare[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama using drones to shoot at US civillians is just one more reason I am keeping my AR15 loaded with high capacity magazines. You have no chance at trying to shooth that drone down with a 6 shooter pistol.

Also drones only cost around $100 that can be armed to shoot people. Criminals will now be using these to do remote fly-by-shootings instead of risking themselves in drive-by-shootings. We are going to need those "high capacity assault rifles" to bring these things down.

url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jplh7uatr-E"]Civilian Drone Warfare[/url]

You hiding out overseas plotting attacks on America? You traitorous bastard you!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Obama was defending these terrorists and saying that deserved their day in court, right wingers would be screaming bloody murder and calling him a traitor and a Muslim.

I'm so sick of rw's siding with terrorists against their own country. They are against Obama killing them and in favor of them being able to buy guns in the US to use against US citizens.